P&H HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Two Men Accused Of Night-Time Attack On Relative After Engagement Dispute, Citing Grievous Injuries And Pending Weapon Recovery

The petitions sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 115(2), 331(6) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an alleged assault at the complainant’s home

The complainant alleged that the petitioners and a co-accused entered his courtyard at night and assaulted him with iron rods and a kirpan following an earlier altercation at a family engagement ceremony

The petitioners claimed false implication, asserted that the complainant’s leg had been fractured in a prior incident, and offered to join the investigation; the State and complainant opposed bail, relying on the alleged grievous injuries

The Court considered the medical record, which identified injuries No. 1 and 5 as grievous on X-ray

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for anticipatory bail.

In Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870, the Supreme Court held that the first consideration in an anticipatory-bail application is the prima facie case; the nature of the offence and severity of punishment must also be considered, and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, is not a sufficient ground to grant bail

The FIR invoked Sections 115(2), 331(6) and 3(5) BNS, 2023

The Court considered the allegations of a group assault at the complainant’s home alongside the medical evidence.

It noted that injuries No. 1 and 5 were grievous on X-ray and found that the injuries had been attributed to the petitioners, establishing a prima facie case for the purpose of the bail applications

Applying Sumitha Pradeep, it did not treat the petitioners’ readiness to join the investigation or the asserted lack of need for custodial interrogation as decisive. The Court also considered that the weapons remained to be recovered and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to complete the investigation

It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail petitions and would not bind the trial court, which must decide the case on the evidence led