Anticipatory bail is denied where life-threatening injuries and specific participation are alleged in a serious assault.

The petitioner filed his first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0123 dated 07.12.2025, registered at Police Station Nandgarh, Bathinda, under Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 333, 331(6), 331(7), 191(3), 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR alleged that the accused forcibly entered the complainant’s residence, where the co-accused inflicted sword blows on the complainant’s head, following which the accused fled after extending threats.

The complainant sustained serious head injuries, which were subsequently opined to be grievous; the alleged occurrence arose from the marriage of the petitioner’s sister with the complainant’s son, reportedly solemnized against the petitioner’s wishes.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, had caused no injury, and was alleged only to have raised a lalkara, whereas the grievous injuries were attributed to the co-accused.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s alleged participation in the occurrence.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, despite the seriousness of the injuries and the allegations against him?

Whether the petitioner’s alleged role in accompanying the co-accused, being armed with an iron chain, and raising a lalkara constituted sufficient material to deny the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and discretionary relief, and its grant depends upon an assessment of the seriousness and nature of the allegations, the applicant’s attributed role, the severity of the injuries, and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Court also considered the relevant offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including those corresponding to offences under Sections 307, 325, 323, 452, 458, 459, 148 and 506 IPC.

The Court found that the medical record disclosed grave and life-threatening injuries, including an extra-axial hematoma, haemorrhagic contusions, comminuted displaced fractures of the frontal bones and a midline shift; the injuries had been opined to be grievous.

Although the petitioner argued that no specific injury was attributed to him, the Court treated his alleged participation as material because he had accompanied the co-accused to the complainant’s residence, was allegedly armed with an iron chain, and raised a lalkara exhorting the co-accused to cause injuries.

The alleged motive arising from the marriage of the petitioner’s sister with the complainant’s son, coupled with the seriousness of the injuries and the petitioner’s alleged role in the occurrence, militated against granting the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner did not merit pre-arrest protection at that stage.

It held that the seriousness of the complainant’s injuries, the alleged motive, and the petitioner’s attributed participation justified refusal of the extraordinary relief under Section 482 BNSS.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of as infructuous.