Anticipatory bail was denied where the applicant’s alibi required investigation amid serious assault allegations.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0227 of 2026, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, for offences under Sections 109, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 4 June 2026, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the complainant was assaulted in the vegetable-market area near Nannurkheda Haat Bazar by 12–15 persons, including the applicant.

The complainant allegedly sustained a serious head injury, received 32 stitches, underwent or was advised to undergo a CT scan, and subsequently received surgical treatment for a depressed skull fracture.

The applicant contended that the FIR did not attribute any specific overt act to him, that the injuries could not prima facie be connected to any particular act on his part, and that he was in Mussoorie at the relevant time.

He relied on photographs, videos, electronic time-stamps and proposed Call Detail Records in support of his alibi.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, arguing that the applicant was specifically named, the victim’s statement supported the prosecution case, the injuries were serious, and the alibi required investigation and verification.

Whether the applicant, who was specifically named in the FIR in an alleged group assault causing serious head injuries, was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant’s plea of alibi, supported by digital material and proposed Call Detail Records, could be conclusively considered at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the application for anticipatory bail in the context of the allegations under Sections 109, 191(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and extraordinary relief, to be assessed on the nature and gravity of the accusations, the applicant’s alleged role, the injuries and surrounding circumstances, and the stage and requirements of the investigation.

The Court further applied the principle that a plea of alibi involves factual questions requiring investigation and verification and ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon at the anticipatory-bail stage.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR and was alleged to have participated, along with several other persons, in the assault on the complainant.

The alleged head injury, administration of 32 stitches and subsequent surgical treatment enhanced the seriousness of the accusations.

Although the applicant relied on digital material to establish his presence in Mussoorie, the Court held that its authenticity, relevance and capacity to establish his absence from the place of occurrence required verification during investigation.

It therefore declined to undertake a detailed evaluation of the alibi or record a conclusive finding on it at the anticipatory-bail stage.

In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the injuries and the need to investigate both the applicant’s role and his defence, the Court found no basis to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in his favour.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail because he was specifically named in the FIR, the allegations concerned a serious group assault causing significant head injuries, and his alibi required investigation and could not be conclusively assessed at that stage.

The anticipatory bail application was accordingly dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to disposal of the anticipatory-bail application and would not prejudice the parties, influence the investigation or affect subsequent proceedings on merits.

No order was made as to costs.