Anticipatory Bail Granted Where Role is Limited to Catching Hold Without Attributing Specific Overt Act of Assault

The applicant, Samandar Singh Banjara, sought anticipatory bail concerning Crime No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station Jamner, District Guna.

On January 20, 2026, the complainant, Anil, reported that while returning home, he encountered the applicant and co-accused Narayan quarreling with his uncle.

When the complainant intervened, the applicant allegedly "caught hold" of him while Narayan assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon (Farsi), causing a grievous injury to his ear.

Medical reports from Shri Multispeciality Hospital, Bhopal, confirmed the injury was of a grievous nature, leading to the addition of Section 118(2) of the BNS.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and that no specific overt act of assault was attributed to him.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS (Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) considering the specific role attributed to him in the assault.

The court applied the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 118(1) and 118(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), Section 115(2) (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 296(1) (obscene acts/songs), Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and Section 3(5) (common intention).

Procedurally, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., governing the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations and the specific role of the applicant versus the co-accused.

It noted the defense's submission that the primary allegation against the applicant was merely "catching hold" of the victim, whereas the actual assault with the lethal weapon (Farsi) was attributed solely to co-accused Narayan.

The Court observed that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Guna, reducing the risk of absconding.

By considering the nature of the allegations and the lack of a specific overt act of physical assault by the applicant himself, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not required, provided the applicant cooperated with the investigation and adhered to strict conditions to prevent witness tampering.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The bail is subject to conditions including: full cooperation with the investigation/trial, no tampering with prosecution evidence or witnesses, and a prohibition on leaving India without prior judicial permission.