Anticipatory bail granted where injuries were simple and the cash-robbery allegation 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 and subsequently assaulted Arvind Rathore, took him in the Bolero, and allegedly robbed him of a gold chain, gold ring, two mobile phones and ₹1 lakh before leaving him near Balgi.

The applicant claimed false implication and questioned the credibility of the allegation concerning possession of ₹1 lakh by the injured person at about 1:30 a.m.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the applicant was specifically implicated through the memorandum statements of Rajendra Sahu and Kapil Kumar Sarthi, and that several accused persons remained absconding.

The State further conceded that the injured had made no specific statement explaining the purpose for which he possessed ₹1 lakh and that his injuries were simple in nature.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offences alleged in Crime No. 122/2026

2. Whether the nature of the injuries, the absence of a specific explanation regarding the alleged ₹1 lakh, and the other circumstances justified granting anticipatory bail without determination of the merits of the prosecution case.

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 also considered the alleged 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.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the apparent gravity of the injuries, the evidentiary circumstances placed before it, and the requirement that the applicant remain available for interrogation and not influence witnesses.

The Court assessed the prosecution’s allegations alongside the material disclosed by the State.

Although the applicant was specifically implicated and some accused persons remained absconding, the Court noted that the injured person’s injuries were simple and that there was no specific statement explaining why he was carrying ₹1 lakh at approximately 1:30 a.m.

These circumstances were considered relevant to the discretionary determination of anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court consequently found it appropriate to protect the applicant from arrest subject to conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and preventing interference with witnesses.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with Crime No. 122/2026, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on 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 whenever called and was prohibited from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to deter disclosure to the Court or police.