General and omnibus allegations in a civil land dispute justified anticipatory bail for most accused.

The eleven petitioners apprehended arrest in Dumri P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with approximately 63 accused persons, assaulted members of the informant’s side, resulting in grievous injury to a person aged about 60 years.

The petitioners contended that the dispute arose from a civil land dispute, that the allegations were false and omnibus, and that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumri.

The State and the informant opposed anticipatory bail on the basis of the serious assault allegations.

The State nevertheless acknowledged that the case involved 63 accused persons and that the case diary contained statements describing the dispute as civil in nature.

Whether petitioner no. 6 was entitled to anticipatory bail despite the specific allegation of assault against him?

Whether petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 were entitled to anticipatory bail where the allegations against them were general and omnibus and arose from an underlying civil land dispute?

The Court considered the statutory framework governing anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2).

It also considered the offences alleged under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations against an accused are general or omnibus and the surrounding circumstances indicate a civil dispute, but may be refused where there is a specific and substantive allegation of assault against the individual applicant.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the FIR implicated approximately 63 persons and that the case diary contained statements indicating that the dispute was civil in nature, with related proceedings pending under Section 145 CrPC.

However, the allegation of assault was specifically attributed to petitioner no. 6; consequently, the Court treated his case differently and refused anticipatory bail.

In contrast, the allegations against petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 were general and omnibus, arising in the context of the larger land dispute and being levelled against a large number of accused persons.

On this factual assessment, the Court found the latter group entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

It granted anticipatory bail to petitioner nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 11.

Those petitioners were directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks and, upon surrender or arrest, to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 each with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.