Anticipatory bail denied for assault on vital organs with sharp weapons causing life-threatening injuries.

The applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 109, 296, 351(3), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on February 20, 2026, the applicant and his associates assaulted the victim, Aditya Pratap Shrivas, and his friends near Lakhiram Auditorium.

The applicant reportedly used a knife to inflict injuries on the victim's neck and chest.

While the applicant contended that the injuries were not dangerous to life and that he was a permanent resident unlikely to abscond, the State presented a query report stating the injuries were "dangerous to life".

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS given the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim.

Section 482 of the BNSS regarding the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.

The substantive provisions of the BNS, specifically Section 109 (punishment of abetment), Section 296 (obscene acts and songs), Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 3(5) (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

The principle that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of the weapon used, and the impact of the injuries on vital body parts are critical factors in bail adjudication.

The Court balanced the applicant’s plea for liberty against the severity of the criminal act.

It noted that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR as having used a knife to assault the victim on vital organs, namely the neck and chest.

Although the applicant argued the injuries were merely "grievous" and not life-threatening, the Court prioritized the medical query report which classified the injuries as "dangerous to life".

The Court reasoned that the violent manner of the commission of the offence and the fact that the investigation was still in progress militated against the grant of discretionary relief.

It held that the seriousness of the allegations, the use of a deadly weapon (knife), the life-threatening nature of the injuries to vital parts of the body, and the ongoing status of the investigation disentitled the applicant to pre-arrest bail.