Anticipatory bail granted when accused previously bailed and no flight/tampering risk despite new charges.

On January 4, 2026, the complainant lodged a report alleging that while he was returning from Village Naila to Village Munund, the applicants, Karan Chaurasiya and Kishan Chaurasiya, stopped him, demanded money for liquor, and upon his refusal, assaulted him with a hockey stick.

The FIR was registered under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 126(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

During the charge-sheet filing, Section 119(2) of the BNS, 2023, was added.

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, alleging that the complainant's mother and wife had assaulted the applicants' sister, leading to a quarrel.

They further stated that their father subsequently lodged an FIR against the complainant and his family on January 5, 2026, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 296, and 351(2) of the BNS, which includes photographic evidence.

The applicants were initially arrested and granted regular bail by the trial court on January 6, 2026.

However, after the addition of Section 119(2) BNS, their previous anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was dismissed on January 31, 2026.

They are permanent residents of Village Munund and assert no likelihood of absconding.

Whether the applicants, Karan Chaurasiya and Kishan Chaurasiya, are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 119(2), 126(2) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which grants inherent powers to the High Court to make orders to secure the ends of justice, including the grant of anticipatory bail.

The court also considered the provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, specifically Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 119(1), 119(2), 126(2), and 3(5), under which the offences were registered.

The principles guiding the grant of anticipatory bail, such as the likelihood of absconding or tampering with witnesses, were implicitly applied.

The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the complainant's allegations of assault by the applicants.

It noted that an FIR was registered under various sections of the BNS, and subsequently, Section 119(2) was added.

Crucially, the court recognized that the applicants had previously been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court.

Considering this procedural history and the absence of a likelihood that the applicants would abscond or tamper with prosecution witnesses, the court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

The court's decision was influenced by the applicants' assertion of false implication and the counter-FIR lodged by their father, supported by photographs, suggesting a wider dispute between the parties.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Karan Chaurasiya and Kishan Chaurasiya shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing one local surety of a like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer.

This is subject to conditions including not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, not acting prejudicially to a fair trial, appearing before the trial court on all dates, submitting Adhaar card copies with photos, and not involving themselves in similar nature crimes in the future.