Anticipatory Bail Granted Amidst Cross-FIR and Compromised Antecedents Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 26/2026 registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar for various BNS offences including Section 331(6).

The prosecution alleged that on 21/01/2026, after a verbal spat at a café, the applicant and his companions entered the complainant’s office, assaulted him, and dragged him out.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the incident actually involved the complainant party assaulting him and his brother, resulting in a counter-FIR (Crime No. 27/2026).

The State opposed the bail citing two previous criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite the existence of criminal antecedents and a pending investigation into house trespass/assault.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.

The court considered provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 331(6) (House-trespass in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment), 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 324(4) (Mischief), and 3(5) (Common intention).

The Court weighed the prosecution's allegations of assault and house-trespass against the applicant’s defense of a counter-FIR and the claim that the previous cases had been compromised.

Although the State highlighted the applicant's criminal history, the Court noted the nature of the dispute, which appeared to be a mutual altercation between two parties leading to cross-complaints.

The Court observed that the primary non-bailable offense was Section 331(6) BNS and found that under the specific facts and circumstances—including the applicant’s status as a student and bank employee—continued custody was not warranted, provided strict conditions to prevent witness tampering or recidivism were imposed.

It held that in the event of arrest, Anshu Rajput shall be released on a personal bond with one local surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions: the applicant must not induce or threaten witnesses, must appear on all trial dates, must provide Aadhaar verification with a full-size photo, and must not engage in similar offenses in the future.