Anticipatory bail granted where injuries are simple and delay suggests concocted FIR following personal enmity.

The applicants filed a first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending arrest for offenses under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 296, 3(5), and 351(3) of the BNS.

The complainant, Mohammad Toufiq, alleged that on the night of March 30-31, 2026, Applicant No. 1 demanded liquor via phone, threatened to vandalize his bar ("Amigos"), and subsequently, both applicants and a co-accused assaulted and verbally abused him at the bar.

The defense contended the FIR was a concocted story arising from a vehicle parking dispute and noted a 12-hour delay in filing the report despite police presence at the scene.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations, the bailable nature of most offenses, and the character of the injuries sustained by the complainant.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court further relied on the judicial principle of evaluating the severity of injuries and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence as benchmarks for bail.

The Court considered the classifications of the alleged offenses under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically noting that while Section 119(1) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation/deterrence) was involved, the remaining charges, including Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 296 (obscenity), and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation), are largely bailable in nature.

The Court examined the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the dispute and the material on record.

It took specific note of the applicants' argument that the FIR lodged 12 hours after the incident suggested an afterthought following a personal dispute over parking.

Crucially, the Court observed that the injuries sustained by the victim appeared to be "simple in nature".

Since the applicants are permanent residents with no apparent risk of absconding, and barring one section, the offenses were bailable, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated and that the rights of the applicants could be protected through conditional liberty.

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions: they must not influence witnesses, must not act prejudicial to the trial, must appear before the trial court on all dates, must provide Aadhaar verification with a full-size photo, and must not commit similar offenses in the future.