Anticipatory bail granted where no specific allegation attributed sharp-weapon assault to the applicant.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 525/2026 registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, for offences under Sections 109, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, on 24 July 2026, the complainant Vinay Kumar Singh and others went to meet Vicky Singh, Rajesh Singh, Ashok Singh and Vijay Memon concerning settlement of accounts relating to land. The accused allegedly abused and assaulted them, after which co-accused Vijay Memon used a knife and caused injuries to the complainant and Narendra Singh.

The applicant denied involvement, asserted that he was present near his residence at the relevant time, and relied on CCTV footage allegedly submitted to the police.

At the time of hearing, five persons had been arrested and two persons remained absconding.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations in Crime No. 525/2026.

Whether the applicant’s alleged role, the attribution of the knife assault specifically to co-accused Vijay Memon, the parties’ business relationship, and the surrounding circumstances justified protection from arrest.

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 assessed the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the available investigation status, and the need to balance custodial investigation with protection against unnecessary arrest.

The offences alleged were under Sections 109, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court noted that, according to the prosecution materials and submissions, Vicky Singh had contacted the complainant at the instance of Rajesh Singh, and that the complainant and co-accused were partners in business.

Although the prosecution alleged that the applicant was present and involved in calling the complainant, the specific allegation of assault with a sharp-edged weapon was directed against Vijay Memon alone.

Considering the applicant’s asserted limited role, the nature of the dispute, the absence of a specific allegation that he used a sharp weapon, and the overall circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

The Court directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in connection with the crime in question, he be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The applicant was required to cooperate with interrogation, refrain from influencing or threatening witnesses, avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

The certified order was directed to be transmitted to the trial Court for information and compliance.