Anticipatory bail granted where medical evidence of grievous injury remains inconclusive despite Section 118(2) BNS charges.

The applicant filed a first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 467/2025.

The prosecution alleged that on December 12, 2025, the applicant used filthy language and assaulted the complainant with a sharp weapon following a previous dispute.

The applicant contended that the injury was simple, the medical records (MLC) were inconclusive as the complainant refused an X-ray/Radiological examination, and the charges under Section 118(2) BNSS were exaggerated.

The State opposed the bail, citing five previous criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the lack of conclusive medical evidence regarding grievous hurt.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The substantive charges were examined under Sections 118(2) (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 296 (obscenity), and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the BNS, noting their correspondence to Sections 326, 294, and 506 of the IPC respectively.

The court weighed the balance between the seriousness of the charges and the requirement of conclusive medical evidence to substantiate "grievous hurt".

The Court analyzed the circumstances and noted that the incident stemmed from a previous dispute and occurred during a mutual quarrel.

Crucially, the Court observed that the medical evidence was inconclusive; although the complainant was advised to undergo an X-ray and radiological examination to determine the severity of the injury, he failed to do so.

Regarding the State's objection concerning the applicant's five criminal antecedents, the Court exercised its discretion by prioritizing the lack of conclusive evidence in the current case over the applicant's history.

The Court reasoned that since the essential ingredients of Section 118(2) BNS (grievous injury) were not prima facie supported by the medical record at this stage, the applicant’s custodial interrogation was not warranted.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the Court; (d) submission of Aadhaar credentials; and (e) abstaining from future similar offences.