Anticipatory bail granted where allegations were general and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 179 of 2025 registered at Police Station Girwai, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 125, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), and subsequently Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 30 and 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, abused and assaulted the complainant’s family at “Dikshit’s Bagiya,” threatened to kill them, and opened fire while armed with deadly weapons.

The applicant denied involvement and contended that the allegations against him were general and omnibus, that no specific overt act or injury was attributable to him, and that his implication was based only on the memorandum of a co-accused.

He further claimed that he was not present at the scene, had no criminal antecedents, had cooperated with the investigation, and did not require custodial interrogation.

Parity was also claimed on the basis of anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Dheeraj Kushwah and regular bail granted to other co-accused persons.

The State opposed the application on the ground of the gravity and nature of the offences.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged offences involving assault, threats, firing, and offences under the Arms Act?

Whether the applicant’s asserted lack of a specific overt act, absence of criminal antecedents, cooperation with the investigation, and parity with co-accused justified protection from arrest?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, under which a person apprehending arrest may be granted pre-arrest protection subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court also considered the allegations under the specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 and 30 of the Arms Act, while assessing the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s alleged role, the possibility of fleeing from justice, the need for custodial interrogation, and parity with co-accused.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the prosecution allegations but found that the material on record did not disclose a likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice.

The applicant’s contentions that the allegations were general, that no specific overt act or injury was attributed to him, that his implication was based on a co-accused’s memorandum, and that he had cooperated with the investigation were considered alongside the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused persons.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that the circumstances justified extending anticipatory-bail protection despite the State’s objection based on the gravity of the offences.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation and trial, non-interference with witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without prior permission of the Trial Court or Investigating Officer.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Trial Court for compliance.