Man Accused Of Stone-Pelting Police After They Cited Court Stay On Construction Gets Bail After Nearly 4 Months In Custody: P&H HC

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 191(3), 191(2), 121(1), 132, 221 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, when police directed the petitioner and his relatives to stop construction pursuant to a Civil Court order, they pelted stones at the police party; one constable was injured, and the petitioner was apprehended at the scene.

The petitioner disputed his involvement, relying on the absence of a distinct overt act and asserting that he was not visible in the video recording. He had been in custody since 14 July 2026; investigation was complete and the challan had been presented.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s alleged participation.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The Court applied the principle in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, that bail secures an accused’s presence at trial and that pre-trial detention is not to be used as punishment; the need for continued custody must be assessed against the requirements of the proceedings and the seriousness of the accusation.

The Court also treated the evidentiary value of the video and disclosure statement as matters for trial rather than conclusively determining them at the bail stage.

The Court regarded the alleged stone-pelting on police officers performing official duties as serious, but held that the gravity of the charge was not conclusive of the bail application.

It did not accept the petitioner’s account of the video as established, nor finally assess the competing evidence; those matters were left for trial.

In favour of bail, the Court considered that the petitioner had been in custody since 14 July 2026, investigation was complete and the challan filed, charges had not yet been framed and none of the nine prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the prior case disclosed by the State had ended in acquittal.

It concluded that the petitioner’s attendance and the protection of the prosecution case could be secured through conditions.

He was prohibited from influencing witnesses or interfering with evidence and was required to appear on each date fixed unless lawfully exempted; misuse of bail could lead to an application for cancellation.

The Court clarified that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.