Completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet do not, by themselves, justify anticipatory bail.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, given the alleged offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS and the specific allegation of assault against him.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner and dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail.

It also directed

No bail or other relief was granted.

01Facts

The petitioner, aged 79, was accused No. 4 in a case arising from a land dispute between his family and the complainant’s family.

pp. 4–7

The complaint alleged that, during an attack by a group of accused, the complainant’s brother was assaulted and died at the scene; the petitioner was alleged to have assaulted the victim with a stone and caused bleeding injuries.

pp. 4–7

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 46/2026, registered for offences including Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

pp. 2–4, 8–10

The investigation had concluded and a charge sheet had been filed.

pp. 2–4, 8–10

The petitioner also relied on his age and the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 5 to 8.

pp. 2–4, 8–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, given the alleged offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS and the specific allegation of assault against him.

pp. 2–3, 7–10

ii.2. Whether the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner’s age, or the grant of anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 5 to 8 justified granting him the same relief.

pp. 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest.

p. 7

The Court considered the serious charge under Section 103(1) of the BNS, which it described as punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

p. 7

It also referred to Section 480 of the BNSS in distinguishing the position of accused Nos. 5 to 8, who were women.

p. 8

The judgment cites no precedent and does not state a broader test for anticipatory bail; it treats the seriousness of the charge, the alleged specific role, and the petitioner’s alleged abscondence as relevant to the application before it.

pp. 7–10

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 9 provisions

Section 189 Section 191 Section 115 Section 118 Section 109 Section 103 Section 352 Section 351 Section 190

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480

04Reasoning

The Court found prima facie material against the petitioner, including the allegation that he assaulted the victim with a stone, and considered the case to involve a grave offence under Section 103(1) of the BNS.

p. 7

It also noted that the petitioner had allegedly been absconding since the case was registered and had not been available to the police.

p. 7

The Court held that completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet did not, by themselves, warrant anticipatory bail.

pp. 3–4, 8

Nor did parity with accused Nos. 5 to 8 assist the petitioner, as the Court distinguished them on the basis that they were women.

p. 8

It further found that the petitioner’s age, without an additional special ground, was insufficient to justify relief.

pp. 8–9