P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Striking Neighbour With Rod, Citing Need To Identify Other Attackers And Recover Weapons

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR alleging that he and others attacked the complainant and his father; the petitioner was specifically alleged to have struck the complainant with a rod.

The complainant suffered five injuries and his father two, and one injury to the complainant was declared grievous, leading to the addition of Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner alleged false implication arising from a neighbourhood dispute and questioned the investigation.

The Sessions Court had dismissed his anticipatory-bail application; the State opposed relief, citing the pending identification of other assailants and recovery of weapons.

Section 482 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail; the Court described this as an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances.

Section 35 BNSS was invoked by the petitioner as a safeguard concerning arrest where offences are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years; however, Section 118(2) BNS carries punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years, so that argument did not apply on these facts.

The Court also treated the need for custodial interrogation to identify other assailants and recover weapons as relevant to the anticipatory-bail determination.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the petitioner faced a specific allegation of striking the complainant with a rod, and that the medical reports supported the occurrence of injuries, including one grievous injury; the discrepancy between the alleged rod blow and the recorded incised wound was a matter for investigation.

The petitioner’s claims of false implication and reliance on a video did not justify rejecting the prosecution version at this stage, while the alleged conversation with the Investigating Officer contained no specific demand for money and was unsupported by a transcript or complaint to a senior officer.

The Court considered custodial interrogation necessary to identify the petitioner’s relative and other assailants and to recover the rod and other weapons.

The interim protection granted on 25 September 2026 was vacated; the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail petition and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.