Anticipatory bail granted considering simple injury, no dangerous weapon used, and co-accused granted bail.

The applicant, Rajesh, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 333 of 2025 at Police Station-Agar, District-Agar Malwa (M.P.), 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 hitting a buffalo, which escalated into a physical scuffle leading to injuries on both sides (cross case FIR Crime No. 331/2025 also exists).

The applicant is accused of slapping Pawan, causing a simple injury, and is not alleged to have used any dangerous weapon.

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

The applicant, aged 38, is an agriculturist with no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant, Rajesh, should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

2. Whether the allegations against the applicant, concerning assault without dangerous weapons and simple injury, warrant custodial interrogation.

3. Whether the applicant's personal circumstances, including lack of criminal antecedents and existing family responsibilities, are relevant to the grant of anticipatory bail.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, which enables the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to grant anticipatory bail.

It also considered principles related to the necessity of custodial interrogation, the nature of injuries, the use of dangerous weapons, criminal antecedents of the accused, and factors like socio-economic status, likelihood of fleeing justice or tampering with evidence.

The court further considered the precedent of a co-accused being granted bail.

The court analyzed the facts by noting that the applicant's alleged role involved slapping Pawan, resulting in a simple injury, and that no dangerous weapon was used.

The court found prima-facie merit in the applicant's contention of false implication, noting the existence of a cross-case indicating a free fight where both parties sustained injuries.

It was also observed that custodial interrogation is not necessary as no weapon is to be recovered from the applicant.

The court considered the co-accused Pappu Gurjar having already been granted anticipatory bail as a relevant factor.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the applicant's clean record, age (38 years), profession (agriculturist), and family responsibilities, concluding there was no likelihood of him fleeing justice, committing further crimes, tampering with evidence, or interfering with the investigation.

The court concluded that incarceration was not necessary for investigation and would cause hardship, social disrepute, and humiliation.

Considering the overall circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the accusation, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed.

The court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant Rajesh 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 related to cooperation with 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.