ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED CONSIDERING APPLICANT'S CLEAN ANTECEDENTS AND MINOR ROLE IN ALTERCATION.

The applicant, Bheema, filed a first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

He is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 333 of 2025, registered at Police Station-Agar, District-Agar Malwa, for offenses under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5), 351(3), 109, 117(2), 190, 191(1), 191(2) and 191(3) of the BNS, 2023.

The incident stemmed from a minor altercation over a motorcycle dashing a buffalo, which escalated into a physical scuffle involving two parties.

The applicant's counsel contended that Bheema was falsely implicated merely due to being a relative of the accused party and only slapped Kuldeep, resulting in a simple injury.

There are no allegations against the applicant regarding assault with any dangerous weapon.

The State opposed bail due to the gravity of the alleged offense but confirmed that no criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant.

Co-accused Pappu Gurjar had already been granted anticipatory bail.

1. Whether the applicant, Bheema, should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 in connection with Crime No. 333 of 2025.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The decision also considered general principles for granting anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, the applicant's role, the severity of injuries attributable to the applicant, the absence of criminal antecedents, the likelihood of fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

The court also noted the precedent of granting bail to a co-accused in a similar matter.

The court analyzed the facts by noting that the applicant's alleged involvement was limited to slapping Kuldeep, causing a simple injury, and that he did not use any dangerous weapon.

The court found that the contentions advanced by the applicant had prima facie merit and were not manifestly baseless.

It further considered that the veracity of the prosecution and the applicant's complicity would be considered on merit after evidence in trial.

Crucially, the court observed that co-accused Pappu Gurjar had already been granted anticipatory bail.

The court also took into account the applicant's age (31 years), profession (agriculturist), family responsibilities, and lack of criminal antecedents, concluding there was no likelihood of him fleeing from justice, engaging in criminal activity, recidivism, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

The court concluded that incarceration did not appear necessary for investigation and that granting anticipatory bail would not prejudice a free, fair, and full investigation.

It was directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Bheema shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a separate solvent surety of the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

These conditions included availability for investigation, not committing similar offenses, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and ensuring compliance with Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 BNSS during trial.

The order is effective until the end of the trial, with a provision for cancellation in case of breach of preconditions.