Anticipatory bail may be granted where the prosecution appears to be a retaliatory counter-case.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 96/2026 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, for offences under Sections 75, 77, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The complainant alleged that on 12 and 14 June 2026, near the public water-supply facility, the applicant and co-accused Santram made vulgar comments and asked questions concerning physical relations.

The applicant contended that his father had already lodged an FIR on 14 June 2026 against members of the complainant’s family for offences under Sections 115(2), 296, 3(5) and 351(3) of the BNS, arising from the same incident, in which the applicant was also injured.

It was argued, and not disputed by the objector’s counsel, that the subsequent FIR was a counter-case lodged four days later.

The State, the objector, and the victim opposed the application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offences under the BNS and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Whether the existence of an earlier cross-FIR, the applicant’s injury, and the subsequent registration of the present case as a counter-case justified extending the protection of anticipatory bail.

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

The alleged offences were assessed under Sections 75, 77, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court considered the surrounding circumstances, particularly the existence of a cross-case, the applicant’s alleged injury, and the possibility that the prosecution was a counter-case.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court accepted as significant that the applicant’s father had lodged an FIR against members of the victim’s family on the date of the alleged incident and that the applicant had sustained injuries in that occurrence.

The present FIR was lodged four days later and was not disputed by the objector to be a counter-case.

Treating these circumstances as creating a reasonable basis for extending pre-arrest protection, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS notwithstanding the opposition of the State, objector, and victim.

In the event of the applicant’s arrest, Prem Kumar Mahilange be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial court; submission and verification of Aadhaar documents and photographs; and involvement in any similar offence in the future.