Anticipatory bail was warranted on parity with bailed co-accused, absent any special ground for denial.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 175/2026 of Humnabad Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complaint arose from a family dispute concerning partition of land and shops.

The prosecution alleged that, during a quarrel on 6 August 2026, petitioner No. 1 struck the injured person with an iron rod, causing injuries including a fracture, and petitioner No. 2 assaulted him with a stick.

The Sessions Court had rejected the petitioners’ anticipatory-bail application, while granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 4.

The State opposed relief, citing the petitioners’ alleged overt acts, the grievous injuries, and the risk of absconding, witness-tampering, and interference with the investigation.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged specific overt acts and grievous injuries.

2. Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 4 supported granting the same relief to the petitioners on the ground of parity.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.

In exercising that power, the Court considered the nature of the alleged offences and injuries, the petitioners’ antecedents and residence, the status of the investigation, and whether the State’s concerns could be addressed through conditions.

The Court also applied parity, observing that accused Nos. 1 and 4 had already received anticipatory bail in the same case.

The alleged offences were under Sections 115(2), 118(2), 351(2), and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioners had committed specific acts and noted the injured person’s fracture and other grievous injuries.

It also considered that the injured person had been discharged, the complainant’s injuries were simple, and the material did not indicate a danger to either person’s life.

The Court further noted the absence of material showing prior criminal antecedents, the petitioners’ permanent residence within the trial court’s jurisdiction, and the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 4.

It concluded that the State’s concerns could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses.

They were required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execute personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum, cooperate with the investigation, attend court when directed, refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing further offences, and comply with the other stated conditions.

The order did not preclude custodial interrogation if the Investigating Officer obtained prior permission from the Magistrate.