P&H HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Men Accused Of Iron-Rod Head Blows, Citing Unrecovered Weapons and Distinct Roles

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 351, 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

They claimed false implication arising from a longstanding civil land dispute and argued that the injuries attributed to them were simple.

The State opposed bail, alleging that Harmohan struck complainant Daljit Puri on the head with an iron rod, while Harjesh struck towards Daljit’s head and separately struck injured Gagan Puri near the left eye; the State also asserted that the weapons remained to be recovered and custodial interrogation was necessary.

The medical record showed five injuries to Daljit, including one grievous injury at the base of his left thumb, and one simple injury to Gagan.

Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 307 IPC, makes the requisite intention or knowledge accompanying the act central to culpability; the infliction of hurt is not an indispensable ingredient of the basic offence, and the simple or grievous classification of an injury is not, by itself, conclusive of its applicability.

The Court relied on Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2026 INSC 1006, for the principle that Section 307 IPC has one culpability limb based on the requisite intention or knowledge, while hurt affects the punishment limb and is not a prerequisite to the offence.

The Court also considered the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail in light of the accusation, the alleged individual roles, the investigation’s stage and the asserted need for recovery and custodial interrogation.

The Court rejected the argument that simple head injuries alone negated Section 109 BNS: the alleged iron-rod blows were directed at the head and other vulnerable areas, and Daljit had also sustained a grievous thumb injury, although its attribution to a particular accused remained to be proved.

It treated the petitioners’ alleged acts as specific and distinguishable, noting that the forehead injury for which Daljit reportedly received eight stitches was attributed to Harmohan, not Harjesh.

The Court held that the existence of civil litigation or prior hostility did not, at this stage, establish that the criminal allegations were false, particularly in view of the medical evidence.

It also found that the pending recovery of the alleged weapons and the State’s stated need for custodial interrogation could not be displaced merely by the petitioners’ willingness to join the investigation.

Both petitions were dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail applications and would not influence the trial.