Anticipatory bail granted where specific roles were undefined and no fracture was medically established.

The applicant, Jandel Singh, filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

He apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 25/2025 for offenses involving assault and criminal intimidation under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 296(A), 118(1), 3(5), and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on December 13, 2025, the applicant and co-accused assaulted the complainant party with sticks, axes, and iron rods over an agricultural field dispute, specifically accusing the applicant of striking a victim on the head with a stick.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to village rivalry, that a cross-case had been registered against the complainants, and that medical evidence (X-ray) showed no fracture to support the grievous injury charge under Section 118(2) BNS.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations, the medical evidence, and the existence of a cross-case.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the High Court’s power to grant anticipatory bail.

It considered the principles of parity in bail, noting that co-accused persons had already been granted regular bail.

The court also evaluated the gravity of the offense as defined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 115 (voluntary hurt) and 118 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons).

The Court examined the discrepancies between the prosecution's allegations and the medical record, noting that the X-ray report failed to confirm any fracture, which weakened the invocation of Section 118(2) of the BNS.

It observed that the allegations against the applicant were somewhat general and that the primary specific overt act regarding grievous injury was attributed to a co-accused, Virendra.

The Court took cognizance of the "cross-case" registered by the applicant's side, suggesting a possibility of a distorted version of the "genesis of the occurrence".

Furthermore, the Court noted that since other co-accused had been granted bail and the applicant was a permanent resident unlikely to flee, his custodial interrogation was not necessitated by the circumstances.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety.

The bail is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, refraining from threatening witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.