Anticipatory bail granted in longstanding land dispute marked by prior counter-complaint and absence of injuries.

The applicants apprehended arrest in Crime No. 81/2026 registered at Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2), 332(c), 304(2) and 331(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, in the context of a longstanding dispute over land bearing Khasra No. 1077/3, the applicants and other co-accused entered the complainant’s premises on 7 July 2026, assaulted and abused the complainant and his family members, and extended threats.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated due to the existing land dispute and prior enmity.

They relied on a complaint lodged by Applicant No. 1’s father on 5 July 2026, alleging that the complainant’s side had broken the boundary wall and entered the disputed land with a tractor, arguing that the FIR dated 7 July 2026 was a counterblast.

They further submitted that no injuries were caused, that the dispute was essentially civil, and that revenue proceedings concerning the land had been decided in favour of their family by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, on 12 May 2026.

The State and the objector opposed the application, citing allegations of assault with sticks and wooden clubs, the absence of the case diary, and criminal antecedents against some applicants.

Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offences alleged in Crime No. 81/2026?

Whether the longstanding land dispute, the prior complaint by the applicants’ side, the absence of injuries, and the favourable revenue order justified extending the protection of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the surrounding circumstances of the dispute, the possibility that the criminal case arose from a civil or land-related dispute, the absence of injuries, and the likely duration of the trial.

The alleged offences were those punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2), 332(c), 304(2) and 331(2) of the BNS.

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

The Court assessed the allegations in the context of the parties’ longstanding land dispute.

It considered significant that the father of Applicant No. 1 had lodged a complaint against the complainant’s side before registration of the present FIR, supporting the applicants’ contention that the prosecution may have been initiated as a counterblast.

The Court also noted that no injury had been caused to the complainant or his family members and that the revenue proceedings concerning the disputed land had been decided in favour of the applicants’ family.

Although the State alleged assault with sticks and wooden clubs and referred to criminal antecedents against some applicants, the Court concluded, without expressing any opinion on the merits, that the overall circumstances made the case suitable for anticipatory bail, particularly as the trial was likely to take considerable time.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Brijesh Yadav, Rupesh Yadav, Ashish Yadav and Abhishek 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 subject to conditions that the applicants shall not threaten or induce witnesses, prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, appear before the trial court on every date, submit Aadhaar cards and photographs as directed, and not commit a similar offence in future.