Anticipatory bail granted where injuries are simple, counter-FIRs exist, and parties intend to compromise.

The four applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 23/2026 at P.S. Seepat.

The complainant, Aditya Patel, a Poklane operator, alleged that the applicants threatened him for "tax," snatched his mobile and keys, and assaulted him with a stick and physical blows, causing injuries to his arm, head, and back.

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, the injuries were simple, and a counter-FIR (No. 25/2026) had been lodged by Applicant No. 1 against the complainant.

Furthermore, the complainant had reportedly filed a "no objection" for bail, expressing a desire to settle via compromise.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail given the nature of injuries and the existence of a counter-case and potential compromise.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC).

The charges involved Sections 296 (obscene acts/songs), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 119(1) (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the circumstances of the dispute.

It noted that the medical evidence categorized the injuries sustained by the victim as "simple in nature".

The Court took significant notice of the procedural history, specifically that a counter-FIR had been registered against the complainant, suggesting a mutual altercation rather than a one-sided attack.

Crucially, the Court observed that the complainant himself had filed an application stating he had no objection to the bail and intended to resolve the matter through a compromise.

These factors, combined with the fact that Applicants No. 3 and 4 were not specifically named in the initial FIR, led the Court to determine that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition on committing similar future offenses.

The Court also highlighted the Investigating Officer's negligence in failing to attach medical reports to the case diary per earlier directions.