After 9 Months Absconding, P&H HC Rejects Woman’s Third Anticipatory Bail Plea In Alleged Police Assault Case

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging that a group obstructed and assaulted police officers and forcibly removed two apprehended persons from police custody.

The petitioner was named among those allegedly involved; she denied participating and relied, among other things, on the absence of a specific act or injury attributed to her.

Her first anticipatory-bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 7 April 2026, and her second was dismissed as withdrawn on 15 October 2026.

In this third petition, the State opposed relief, including on the grounds that there was no substantial change in circumstances and that the petitioner had not joined the investigation.

The Court recorded that she had evaded investigation for more than nine months.

Section 482 of the BNSS governs the application for anticipatory bail.

In Bhisham Singh v. State of Haryana, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 65, the Court stated that a successive anticipatory-bail petition is not barred solely because it is successive, but the applicant must show a substantial change in circumstances; a mere superficial change is insufficient.

A court granting such relief must give cogent reasons.

The Court also relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the proposition that custodial interrogation may be more effective in eliciting information and material than questioning a suspect protected by an anticipatory-bail order.

The Court considered the petition against the principles governing successive anticipatory-bail applications and found that the petitioner had identified no fresh, substantial change in circumstances.

On the merits, it treated the allegations of assaulting police officers and forcibly rescuing apprehended persons as serious, and held that the petitioner’s denial of presence and the absence of a specifically attributed injury could not be resolved through a detailed assessment at the anticipatory-bail stage.

It also considered her failure to join the investigation for more than nine months and found that her conduct, viewed alongside the allegations, weighed against granting relief.

The claimed parity with co-accused granted regular bail did not alter the result, as parity could not be applied mechanically and the petitioner’s circumstances differed.

It directed that its observations would not affect the merits of the case and that the investigating agency and trial court should proceed in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.