Anticipatory bail may be granted when investigation concerns can be addressed through cooperation conditions.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 201/2026, registered for offences under Sections 118(1), 109(1), 352 and 351(3), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complaint alleged that, amid a longstanding dispute over a pipeline and agricultural land, the petitioners assaulted the complainant’s brother with sticks, causing head injuries, and threatened him.

The State opposed bail, citing specific alleged acts, the victim’s injuries and the ongoing investigation.

The petitioners relied, among other matters, on the victim’s discharge from hospital and a counter-case arising from the same incident.

Whether the petitioners had made sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail despite the alleged assault, injuries and ongoing investigation.

Whether the victim’s Scheduled Tribe status, in the absence of an allegation of caste-based intent, furnished a basis to deny anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for anticipatory bail.

The petition concerned the alleged BNS offences specified above, including common intention under Section 3(5).

The Court also considered whether the materials disclosed a caste-based offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, observing that the complaint contained no allegation that the petitioners acted to insult or intimidate the victim or complainant because of their community.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court acknowledged the specific allegations that the petitioners assaulted the victim and that the investigation remained incomplete.

It nevertheless considered that the victim’s continued inpatient treatment was not established by the hospital material, and the State did not controvert the petitioners’ submission that he had been discharged and faced no continuing danger to life.

It also noted the counter-case arising from the same incident, the petitioners’ local residence and the absence of material showing prior criminal antecedents.

Finding no allegation of caste-based intent and concluding that the State’s concerns could be addressed through conditions, the Court granted anticipatory bail while preserving the possibility of custodial interrogation with prior court permission.

The police were directed to release each petitioner on bail in the event of arrest upon execution of a personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Conditions required the petitioners to appear before and assist the Investigating Officer, attend court when directed, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation, and not commit further offences.

Custody for interrogation remains permissible with prior permission of the competent court.