Anticipatory bail granted where injuries were simple and alleged cash possession lacked supporting explanation.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 122/2026 registered at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba, for offences under Sections 140(3), 310(2), 311 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The prosecution alleged that, during the night of 7 June 2026, persons travelling in a Bolero vehicle ran over Chandramani Ratre, assaulted Arvind Rathore, forcibly took him in the vehicle, and robbed him of a gold chain, ring, two mobile phones and ₹1 lakh before abandoning him near Balgi.

The applicant denied involvement and contended that he had been falsely implicated.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting that there were specific allegations against the applicant, that his name appeared in the memorandum statements of Rajendra Sahu and Kapil Kumar Sarthi, and that only three of the ten alleged participants had been arrested.

The State also disclosed that the applicant had two criminal antecedents under Sections 69 and 281 of the BNS.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the stated offences?

Whether the nature of the injuries and the absence of a specific explanation regarding the alleged possession of ₹1 lakh justified the grant of anticipatory bail, notwithstanding the prosecution’s allegations and the applicant’s antecedents?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the nature of the injuries, the applicant’s antecedents, and the need to impose conditions securing his availability for investigation and preventing interference with witnesses.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 140(3), 310(2), 311 and 115(2) of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Court acknowledged that specific allegations had been made against the applicant and that his name appeared in memorandum statements, while also noting that several alleged participants remained absconding.

However, the State confirmed that the injured Arvind Rathore had suffered simple injuries and that his statement contained no specific explanation for his allegedly carrying ₹1 lakh at about 1:30 a.m.

Considering these circumstances, together with the submissions of the parties and the material in the case diary, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court balanced the need for investigation by requiring the applicant to remain available for interrogation and prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 122/2026, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to remain available for interrogation whenever required and must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing the facts to the Court or police.