Anticipatory Bail Denied for Grave Assault and Robbery Allegations Supported by Prima Facie Evidence

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding Crime No. 408/2026

The prosecution alleged that on March 27, 2026, the applicant and his brother demanded money for liquor from the complainant, Dr. Prateek Mohanti. Upon receiving only Rs. 200, the applicant allegedly used filthy language, physically assaulted the complainant causing injuries, and committed robbery of cash and a mobile phone while threatening his life

The applicant contended that the incident was a mutual scuffle resulting from personal vendetta and that no grievous injuries were sustained to warrant the charges

Conversely, the State argued the assault was serious, involving criminal trespass and specific intent

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the injuries sustained by the complainant.

The Court considered the provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2026, specifically Section 333 (House-trespass), Section 119(2) (Grievous hurt), Section 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and Section 3(5) (Joint liability)

The court applied the established judicial principles governing anticipatory bail, which require an assessment of the nature and gravity of the offense, the severity of the punishment, the prima facie strength of the evidence, and the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence

The Court examined the case diary and the statements provided by the prosecution, noting that the allegations against the applicant were specific and active

The Court found that the applicant, along with a co-accused, did not merely engage in a scuffle but participated in a targeted assault resulting in internal injuries to the victim's throat and head, alongside robbery

The Court rejected the applicant's argument for parity with the co-accused (who received regular bail) and the claim of simple injuries, emphasizing that the gravity of the assault on vital body parts and the element of threat to life necessitated custodial interrogation

The Court reasoned that releasing the applicant at this stage posed a significant risk of witness tampering and evidence manipulation given the seriousness of the conduct

Holding that the prima facie evidence supported grave allegations of assault and robbery, the Court directed that the applicant was not entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail

The application was dismissed accordingly