P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two Men Accused Of Group Attack At Family Home, Citing Two Grievously Injured Victims And Unrecovered Weapons

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the allegations, injuries and investigation requirements.

The court held

The court held that the petitioners did not deserve anticipatory bail and dismissed both petitions.

It also directed

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the connected case file.

01Facts

The petitions sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 189 dated 3 October 2026, registered at Police Station Sadhaura, Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 190, 191(3), 115, 351(3) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 117(2) BNS was subsequently added.

¶ 2

The FIR alleged that the petitioners and approximately 14–15 others assaulted members of the complainant’s family at their home using weapons including lathis, gandasis and swords.

¶ 3

Two victims, Ankush and Abhishek, were found to have grievous injuries.

¶ 3

The petitioners claimed false implication, argued that the alleged house-trespass offence was not made out, and offered to join the investigation.

¶ 4

The State and complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need to recover the weapons through custodial interrogation.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the allegations, injuries and investigation requirements.

¶ 2, 7–8

ii.Whether the asserted need for recovery of the weapons and custodial interrogation justified refusal of anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶ 5, 7–8

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail; the court stated that this extraordinary power is to be used sparingly and with circumspection, relying on Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja v. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 968.

¶ 6

Relying also on Shri Kant Upadhay v. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023, the court noted that protection from arrest in a serious case may hamper investigation or facilitate the tampering with or destruction of evidence.

¶ 6

The court further treated custodial interrogation as potentially more effective than questioning a suspect protected by interim bail for eliciting information and recovering concealed evidence.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 13 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 190 Section 191 Section 115 Section 351 Section 333 Section 117

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 149 Section 148 Section 323 Section 506 Section 452 Section 325

04Reasoning

The court considered the allegations that the petitioners participated in a group assault at the complainant’s home, the grievous injuries suffered by two victims, and the fact that the weapons had not yet been recovered.

¶ 3, 7

It accepted the State’s position that custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation and reasoned that anticipatory-bail protection could impede effective questioning and the recovery of evidence.

¶ 5, 7

In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the investigative needs, the court declined to grant the exceptional relief sought.

¶ 6–8