Anticipatory bail may be denied where serious bottle assault requires investigation and custodial interrogation.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 223/2026 registered at Police Station M.P. Nagar, Bhopal, initially under Sections 296, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 118(2) BNS was subsequently added.

The prosecution alleged that, during a birthday gathering at a hotel on the night of 10/11 June 2026, a monetary dispute arose between the applicant and Kamlesh Vishwakarma. The applicant allegedly abused and assaulted Vishwakarma with a glass liquor bottle on the head and cheek, causing bleeding injuries, and thereafter threatened to kill him.

The applicant contended that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel, that there was no premeditation, and that the medical material did not establish grievous hurt so as to attract Section 118(2) BNS.

The State opposed the application on the grounds that the assault involved a bottle used on a vital part of the body, the injuries and applicability of Section 118(2) required investigation, and custodial interrogation might be necessary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, considering the allegations of assault with a glass liquor bottle, criminal intimidation, and the stage of investigation.

Whether the applicability of Section 118(2) BNS could be conclusively rejected at the anticipatory-bail stage on the ground that the alleged injuries did not amount to “grievous hurt”.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The Court recognised that personal liberty is an important consideration in anticipatory-bail proceedings, relying on the principles stated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; however, that discretion must be exercised with regard to the seriousness and manner of the alleged offence, the nature of the injuries, and the requirements of investigation.

Disputed questions concerning the nature of injuries and the applicability of a penal provision requiring grievous hurt ordinarily require examination of medical and other investigative material and should not be conclusively determined at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The Court treated the alleged use of a glass liquor bottle on the injured person’s head and face as a serious circumstance, notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that the incident resulted from a sudden quarrel.

It held that the fact that the bottle was available at the spot did not exclude the possibility that it was intentionally used to cause injury.

The applicant’s argument that Section 118(2) BNS was inapplicable because grievous hurt was not established involved disputed medical and factual questions that could not be conclusively resolved at this stage.

Given the serious allegations, the alleged criminal intimidation, and the investigation being at an initial stage, the Court was not persuaded that custodial interrogation was wholly unnecessary.

The application for anticipatory bail was consequently rejected.