Anticipatory bail granted where FIR lacked specific assault attribution and applicant had no criminal antecedents.

On 22 July 2026 at approximately 6:30 a.m., Pravin Rawat and others were ploughing the backyard of an agricultural field with a tractor when Kamalpati, the complainant’s aunt, objected and called the complainant’s family members.

A confrontation followed, during which Sukhsagar allegedly assaulted Devraj, while Shampati and others were allegedly assaulted by the accused persons, including the present applicant, Devkumar.

Crime No. 195 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had been falsely implicated in a family and land dispute, that his name was not specifically mentioned in the FIR as having assaulted anyone, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application, alleging that the applicant and others had assaulted the complainant party with axes and clubs, causing injuries to four persons.

However, the State acknowledged that Anurag and Ram Bergah had suffered simple injuries, while the nature of Devraj’s injury was not recorded in the MLC.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 195 of 2026.

2. Whether the nature of the allegations, the absence of a specific allegation that the applicant assaulted the injured persons, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the circumstances of the underlying dispute justified protection from arrest.

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

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail may be granted after considering the nature of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the available injury evidence, the surrounding circumstances, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents, without expressing a final opinion on the merits.

The Court considered that the incident arose out of a family and agricultural-land dispute and that the FIR did not specifically state that the applicant had assaulted any of the injured persons.

The State’s own submission showed that at least two injured persons had sustained simple injuries, while the nature of Devraj’s injury was unspecified in the MLC.

The Court also took into account that no criminal antecedent was registered against the applicant.

Balancing these circumstances against the allegations of a group assault, the Court found the case appropriate for anticipatory bail, while expressly refraining from adjudicating the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with Crime No. 195 of 2026, he be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to remain available for interrogation and not to induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to deter disclosure to the Court or police.