Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Five Assault Accused, Citing Victim’s Recovery And No Deadly Weapons

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 262/2026 of Mudhol Police Station, registered under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complaint alleged that on 1 September 2026 the petitioners assaulted Sindhur with their hands and legs, abused him and threatened to kill him. The complaint was lodged on 11 September 2026.

The medical records noted two simple injuries and one grievous injury; the injured had been discharged from hospital and was no longer in danger.

The petitioners claimed false implication, relied on the delay in complaint and absence of deadly weapons, and sought anticipatory bail.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations disclosed a prima facie attempt-to-murder offence.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the petitioners’ antecedents and circumstances including the medical condition of the injured in deciding whether to grant that relief.

The offences alleged were those under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 190 of the BNS.

The Court found that the petitioners had quarrelled with and assaulted the injured, who sustained injuries including one classified as grievous.

However, it noted that the petitioners had not used deadly weapons, the injured had been discharged and was no longer in danger, and the petitioners were students or coolies residing at the addresses stated in the petition.

Weighing those circumstances and the nature and gravity of the offences, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail was appropriate, notwithstanding the State’s objection.

These included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with one surety for the like sum; surrender to the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order; attendance at court hearings; non-interference with prosecution witnesses; monthly attendance before the investigating officer for six months or until the charge-sheet is filed, whichever occurs first; and refraining from further offences.

The prosecution was permitted to seek cancellation of bail if any condition was violated.