Anticipatory bail granted for lack of specific overt acts and existence of a cross-complaint.

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.]

The applicant was implicated in Crime No. 18/2026 at Police Station Ghatigaon, Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 296(A), 351(2), 118(1), 3(5), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, acting with common intention, assaulted the complainant and others with lathis and iron rods

the applicant argued that he was unarmed, only used abusive language, and was himself a victim in the incident, which occurred in front of his residence

A cross-FIR (Crime No. 19/2026) was registered against the complainant party for injuries sustained by the applicant and his family

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations, the existence of a cross-case, and the lack of specific allegations regarding physical injury caused by him

The Court applied the principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS

It considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding voluntary causing of hurt (Section 115), causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 118), and acts done in furtherance of common intention (Section 3(5))

The Court relied on established judicial discretion regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation versus the protection of personal liberty, particularly in cases involving "free fights" or cross-complaints where the aggressor is not immediately certain

The Court examined the case diary and the specific role attributed to the applicant. It observed that, per the prosecution's own version, there was no specific allegation of the applicant causing physical injury to any person; his role was limited to using abusive language

The Court found merit in the submission that the incident appeared sudden and lacked premeditation.

the Court noted the registration of a cross-case (Crime No. 19/2026) against the complainant party and the fact that the incident transpired in front of the applicant’s house, which prima facie supported the defense’s contention that the complainant party might have been the aggressors

Given that the applicant is a permanent resident with no apparent risk of absconding, and has undertaken to cooperate with the investigation, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to conditions that the applicant must cooperate with the investigation and trial, must not threaten witnesses or commit further offences, and shall not leave India without prior permission