Multiple criminal antecedents and gravity of allegations justify rejection of anticipatory bail.

The applicant, Ashish Tandan, sought anticipatory bail following the registration of FIR No. 1360/2025 for offences committed within court premises

The incident occurred on November 15, 2025, during the production of one Ashutosh Chaitanya (accused in an SC/ST Act case) before the Special Court, Bilaspur

Allegedly, two opposing groups engaged in aggressive behavior, exchanged abuses, and used force against police and administration; the applicant was identified as a participant in this clash

The applicant contended he was present at the court for an unrelated matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sought parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail

The State opposed the application, highlighting that the applicant has six criminal antecedents and noting that bail had previously been denied to other co-accused involved in the same incident

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), given his criminal history and the nature of the allegations

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [Note: analogous to Section 438 CrPC], which governs the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest

The court considered the nature and gravity of the accusations under Sections 191 (2), 221, 132, 296, 351(2), and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

It further relied on the principle that criminal antecedents and the ongoing status of an investigation are critical factors in determining the eligibility for pre-arrest bail

The court evaluated the gravity of the incident, which involved violence and obstruction of justice within a judicial complex

In addressing the applicant's plea for parity, the court distinguished his circumstances from those of co-accused Gyanendra Kumar Kosale, who was granted bail solely due to a lack of criminal records and scheduled academic examinations

Conversely, the court noted that the applicant possessed six criminal antecedents and that bail applications for other co-accused, Sanjeet Kumar Burman and Amrit Das Dahariya, had already been rejected

The court reasoned that the combination of the applicant's prior criminal record, the serious nature of the allegations involving force against the administration, and the fact that the investigation remained active precluded the grant of discretionary relief

The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. Under the final order, the application was dismissed