Anticipatory bail is justified where injuries are simple and the accused lacks criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Chandra Prakash Sidar, filed his first anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Police Station Gharghoda

The prosecution alleged that on 18.02.2026, the complainant and his friends were intercepted by the applicant and co-accused while returning from an engagement function

They were allegedly taken to a house, abused, and assaulted with hands and fists over a land dispute involving the cutting of trees

The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, his name was not in the order sheet, and there were no specific allegations regarding his presence during the incident

The State noted that the injuries sustained were simple and the applicant had no prior criminal record

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the nature of the injuries and the absence of criminal antecedents

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides for the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

The underlying offences were registered under Sections 296 (obscene acts), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 127(2) (wrongful confinement), 140(3) (kidnapping/abduction with intent to cause hurt), 190 (unlawful assembly), and 191(2) (rioting) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The Court reviewed the case records and submissions, focusing on the gravity of the allegations versus the evidence presented

It observed that while an FIR was registered, the injuries sustained by the complainant and his friends were "simple in nature"

The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal history, a fact not disputed by the State

By weighing these circumstances against the applicant's claim of false implication and the lack of specific allegations regarding his active role on the date of the incident, the Court determined that the applicant’s liberty should be protected pending trial

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

This relief was made subject to five conditions: (a) no inducement or threat to witnesses; (b) no prejudice to the trial; (c) appearance before the trial court on all dates; (d) submission of Aadhaar credentials and photos; and (e) non-involvement in future offences of a similar nature