P&H HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Men Accused Of Armed Attack On RWA Election Rival’s Family

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute connected with a Residents Welfare Association election, the petitioners and co-accused forcibly entered the complainant’s home and assaulted family members, including a woman and a child.

Petitioner Ritwik Sharma was alleged to have assaulted family members and threatened them; petitioner Purshotam Vats was alleged to have used an iron rod and assaulted a victim.

The Sessions Court had rejected their anticipatory-bail applications.

The petitioners asserted false implication, sought parity with co-accused granted regular bail, and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary; the State opposed relief, citing the allegations, an unrecovered iron rod, and the petitioners’ failure to join the investigation.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail.

In deciding such an application, the Court must balance individual liberty against societal interests and consider, among other matters, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused’s role, and the need for a fair and effective investigation.

The considerations governing regular bail differ from those governing anticipatory bail, so regular bail granted to co-accused does not, by itself, establish parity.

Relying on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a suspect protected by pre-arrest bail.

The Court considered the allegations that the petitioners joined an armed group that trespassed into a home and assaulted members of a family, and found that the allegations and preliminary material provided a reasonable basis for the accusations.

It held that the petitioners could not rely on co-accused’s regular bail as establishing parity, given the distinct considerations for anticipatory bail.

It also noted Ritwik Sharma’s admitted criminal antecedent and the State’s assertion that the petitioners had not joined the investigation and that the alleged iron rod remained unrecovered.

The claims of false implication raised disputed questions of fact for later determination, while custodial interrogation was considered necessary for an effective investigation.

It stated that nothing in the order should be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case or investigation; any pending applications were also disposed of.