Anticipatory bail granted where medical examination of injuries is absent and criminal antecedents are nil.

The applicant, Dinesh Verma (Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Raikheda), sought anticipatory bail following the registration of Crime No. 73/2026 at Police Station Kharora.

The complainant, owner of "Mohini Mogra" restaurant, alleged that on 23.01.2026, the applicant and approximately 25–30 associates forcibly entered the premises, assaulted staff, committed theft of Rs. 24,000 and mobile phones, and caused property damage of approximately Rs. 6,50,000.

The applicant contended that the case was a malicious fabrication intended to suppress public protests regarding the restaurant's alleged involvement in illegal liquor sales.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of assault and vandalism.

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

The substantive charges were registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2026, including Section 191(3) (rioting with deadly weapons), Section 332 (house-trespass), Section 296 (obscene acts), Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 324(5) (mischief causing damage), and Section 309 (theft/robbery).

The court also considered the principle of judicial discretion, weighing the severity of allegations against the lack of physical evidence (medical reports) and the applicant's prior conduct.

The Court noted that while the prosecution alleged physical assault, the medical injuries of the two victims had not been examined or documented, weakening the immediate gravity of the violence alleged.

The Court further observed that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident, minimizing the risk of absconding.

Given that the investigation and subsequent trial were expected to be prolonged, and without commenting on the final merits of the restaurant's claims versus the Sarpanch's allegations of political framing, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated at this stage.

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond with one surety.

The grant is subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not influence witnesses, must participate in the trial, must provide verified identification (Aadhaar), and must not commit any similar future offences.