Anticipatory bail denied in group assault cases involving life-threatening injuries despite applicant's limited physical role.

On February 20, 2026, the applicant, Vedant Gupta, along with co-accused Yug Mishra and Nikhil Nagwani, allegedly intercepted the victim, Aditya Pratap Shrivas, and his friends at Lakhiram Auditorium, Bilaspur

The accused persons allegedly used abusive language and initiated a physical assault.

While the co-accused allegedly used a knife to stab the victim in the neck and chest, the applicant and another associate are alleged to have assaulted the victims with fists and blows

The victim sustained grievous injuries, which were later classified as "dangerous to life" in a medical query report

The applicant moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, contending that his role was limited to simple battery and was distinguishable from the co-accused who used weapons

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the gravity of the injuries and the nature of his involvement

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

It further considered the penal provisions under Sections 109, 296, 351(3), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The court’s discretion in such matters is governed by the principles of the "gravity of the offence," the "manner of commission," and the potential impact on the ongoing investigation

The Court examined the applicant's argument that he did not use a weapon and therefore his case should be distinguished from those who inflicted stab wounds

the Court found that the applicant was explicitly named in the FIR as part of the group that common-intentionally assaulted the victims

The Court placed significant weight on the MLC and medical query reports, which categorized the victim’s injuries to the neck and chest as "grievous" and "dangerous to life"

It was observed that the collective nature of the assault and the severity of the consequences for the victim outweighed the applicant's personal assurances regarding his residency or willingness to cooperate

the Court emphasized that since the investigation is still in its active stages, granting pre-arrest bail would be inappropriate given the seriousness of the conduct

It held that the severity of the offence, the violent manner in which the crime was executed, and the ongoing status of the investigation disentitled the applicant from the relief of anticipatory bail