P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two Men Accused Of Home Attack, Citing Grievous Injuries To Two Victims And Unrecovered Weapons

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the allegations and the circumstances of the investigation.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioners and dismissed both anticipatory-bail petitions, holding that they did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.

It also directed

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.

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, District Yamuna Nagar, under Sections 190, 191(3), 115, 351(3) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 117(2) was added later.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The FIR alleged that, following an earlier altercation, the petitioners and approximately 14–15 others attacked the complainant’s family at their home with weapons including lathis, gandasis and swords. Two victims, Ankush and Abhishek, sustained grievous injuries.

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The petitioners claimed false implication, offered to join the investigation and argued that the alleged house-trespass offence was not made out. The State and complainant opposed bail, submitting that the weapons remained unrecovered and custodial interrogation was necessary.

p. 2 · ¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the allegations and the circumstances of the investigation.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8

ii.Whether the petitioners’ custodial interrogation was necessary, including for recovery of the weapons of offence, such that pre-arrest protection could hamper the investigation.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–8

03Law Applied

Section 482 BNSS provides for anticipatory bail. The Court stated that this extraordinary power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, relying on Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja v. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 968.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

It also relied on Shri Kant Upadhay v. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023, for the principle that protection from arrest in a serious case may risk miscarriage of justice or hamper investigation, including through the tampering with or destruction of evidence.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

The Court further observed that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a suspect outside custody in uncovering information and concealed evidence.

p. 3 · ¶ 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 treated the allegations as serious because the petitioners were alleged to have participated in a group assault at the victims’ home, and two victims had sustained grievous injuries.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The weapons of offence had not been recovered; the Court accepted the prosecution’s position that custodial interrogation was required for that purpose.

p. 3 · ¶ 5, 7

It considered that anticipatory bail could impede effective interrogation and hamper the investigation, and concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the exceptional relief sought.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–8

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the petitioners and dismissed both anticipatory-bail petitions, holding that they did not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

LawLens.Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF