Anticipatory Bail Granted Where Non-Bailable Sections Were Added Subsequently Amid Allegations of Mala Fide Prosecution

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 94/2026 registered at Police Station Jaijaipur.

The complainant alleged that on 29.03.2026, the applicant entered her house under renovation, attempted to throttle her, used abusive language, and threatened her life due to prior enmity.

Initially, the FIR was registered under bailable sections of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, Section 331(2) (House-trespass) of the BNS, a non-bailable offense, was subsequently added.

The applicant contended that the case was falsely fabricated due to prior animosity and alleged he received extortion calls threatening the addition of non-bailable sections if money was not paid.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail despite the subsequent addition of a non-bailable offense under Section 331(2) of the BNS.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail (analogous to Section 438 of the CrPC).

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, specifically Sections 296 (Obscene acts/songs), 351(3) (Criminal intimidation by threatening death), 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), and 331(2) (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint).

The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the material on record, noting the applicant’s defense regarding long-standing prior enmity and the suspicious timing of the addition of Section 331(2) BNS.

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was the medical evidence, which indicated that the injuries sustained by the injured party appeared to be "simple in nature".

Furthermore, the court took note of the applicant’s lack of previous criminal antecedents and his status as the sole breadwinner of his family.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against the nature of the injuries and the possibility of mala fide prosecution, the court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearances before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offenses.

The court mandated the verification of Aadhaar details and photographs for both the applicant and the surety.