Anticipatory bail granted where rejection was based on unfounded assumption of absconding without Section 84 BNSS proceedings.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 17/2025 involving alleged rioting and assault during a dispute over the burial of Late Chamraram Salam on 17.12.2025

The prosecution alleged the applicant formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted villagers with sticks

The applicant contended that the dispute was instigated by the complainant due to communal and political rivalry following the 2025 Sarpanch elections, noting that he had filed a prior complaint on 16.12.2025 apprehending violence

The Sessions Court previously rejected his bail application primarily on the assumption that he was absconding

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of communal rioting and the defense of false implication

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail (successor to Section 438 CrPC).

Section 84 of the BNSS regarding the legal definition and procedures for declaring a person a "proclaimed offender" or "absconding"

The Court also integrated the principle that routine arrests should be avoided for offences punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment, as seen in the sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, charged here (Sections 190, 191, 115, 118, etc.)

The Court observed that the Sessions Court's rejection was erroneously based on the premise that the applicant was absconding, despite a lack of formal proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS

Highlighting the applicant's defense, the Court noted that his prior police report (dated 16.12.2025) naming the complainant as an instigator prima facie supported his claim of a premeditated dispute by the opposite party

The Court found the dispute to be rooted in "larger communal and political issues" and noted that the applicant’s exact role remained a matter of investigation

Furthermore, as the applicant had no criminal antecedents and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences was seven years, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on executing a personal bond with one surety. The Court imposed conditions requiring the applicant to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from threatening witnesses, and submit identification documents (Aadhar and photographs) to the trial court