Anticipatory bail denied where grievous injuries and a prima facie serious offence were established.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 129 of 2026, registered at Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He claimed false implication and argued that the injuries were simple, while undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State and informant opposed the application, relying on Foturam’s depressed head fracture, the opinion that the injuries were grievous and dangerous to life, and the applicant’s insufficiently explained criminal antecedents; they also disputed maintainability by reference to Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar.

The Court noted that three persons on the informant’s side had sustained injuries and found a prima facie case on the FIR, witness statements and injury reports.

1. Whether the applicant had shown a basis for grant of anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, injury evidence and material collected during the preliminary investigation.

2. Whether the principles governing anticipatory bail warranted protection from arrest in this case, notwithstanding the applicant’s claim of innocence and undertaking to cooperate.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked for anticipatory bail, with the Court applying principles associated with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, which characterises anticipatory bail as an extraordinary power requiring cautious and judicious exercise, and on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which states that pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course and requires consideration of the accusation’s nature and gravity, the applicant’s role and other relevant factors.

It also referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil on balancing personal liberty against the investigating agency’s need to investigate, and to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) on considering the offence’s nature and gravity, the applicant’s role, and risks to the investigation or justice.

The Court further cited Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab in support of its view that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power not to be exercised routinely.

The Court considered the applicant’s assertion that the injuries were simple against the injury report showing that Foturam had sustained a depressed head fracture, assessed as grievous, and the other material indicating injuries to three persons.

On the FIR, witness statements and injury reports, it found a prima facie case, including under Section 109 BNS, and concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the case was false or that the record negated a prima facie basis for the accusations.

Applying the cautious approach required for the extraordinary remedy, the Court held that the circumstances did not justify anticipatory bail; it also distinguished the standards for regular and anticipatory bail.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned for further action in accordance with law.