Anticipatory bail denied where serious allegations are compounded by four criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 404/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, for offences under Sections 333, 324(4)(5), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 326(G) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused went to the complainant’s house, demanded liquor, abused him when he refused, vandalised the gate and household articles, threatened to kill him, assaulted him with fists, blows and stones, and set fire to a bajwat kept in the courtyard.

The applicant claimed false implication, inconsistencies in the prosecution case, insufficient evidence, and parity with a co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail.

The State opposed the application, relying on four criminal antecedents registered against the applicant and describing him as a habitual offender.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No. 404/2026?

Whether the nature of the allegations and the applicant’s four criminal antecedents justified refusal of anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The Court also considered the alleged offences under Sections 333, 324(4)(5), 296, 115(2), 351(3), 326(G) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising its discretion, the Court assessed the seriousness and manner of the alleged offences, the accusation against the applicant, and his criminal antecedents; no separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found the allegations sufficiently serious: the applicant was alleged to have participated in a group attack involving unlawful demand for liquor, abusive conduct, vandalism, criminal threats, physical assault and setting fire to property.

Against this background, the Court gave substantial weight to the applicant’s four prior criminal cases, including cases under the IPC and BNS, and considered them indicative of repeated involvement in criminal conduct.

Although the applicant relied on alleged contradictions, lack of cogent evidence and parity with a co-accused who had obtained anticipatory bail, the Court was not persuaded that these factors outweighed the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s antecedents.

Upon considering the submissions and perusing the case diary, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power in the applicant’s favour.

The anticipatory bail application of Lokesh Karsh in connection with Crime No. 404/2026, Police Station Civil Lines, Korba, was accordingly rejected.