Anticipatory bail granted in a food-related hotel assault despite the injured person’s fractured hand.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 193/2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that a dispute arose between the parties over eating food at a hotel in Kasheebahra, following which the accused persons assaulted the injured person and used abusive language.

The initial prosecution case described the injuries as simple.

The applicant contended that the hotel belonged to his father, that his presence there was natural, and that he had merely intervened to separate the persons involved in a sudden quarrel.

He denied any assault or specific overt act and alleged false implication through general and omnibus accusations.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the injured had been assaulted with a sharp-edged article and had suffered a fracture to the right hand.

1. Whether the applicant, who apprehended arrest in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether the nature and seriousness of the injury, particularly the fracture to the injured person’s right hand, warranted refusal of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged offences were those under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court considered the circumstances of the alleged occurrence, the nature of the dispute, the nature of the injuries and the overall facts of the case.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the incident arose from a dispute concerning food items at a hotel owned by the accused persons.

Although the State relied upon the allegation that a sharp-edged article had been used and that the injured person had suffered a fracture to the right hand, the Court, after considering the record and the surrounding circumstances, found the case appropriate for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail.

The Court therefore resolved the apprehension-of-arrest issue in favour of the applicant, subject to statutory and judicial safeguards intended to prevent interference with the investigation or trial.

The High Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Mukesh Yadav be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was made subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial Court; submission and verification of Aadhaar documents and photographs; and involvement in any similar offence in the future.