Pre-arrest bail granted where medical evidence contradicts use of lethal weapons and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding New Capital Complex P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026.

The FIR alleged that on January 10, 2026, the petitioners lured the victim, Biswajit Deb, to a shopping mall, attacked him with a sharp weapon with intent to kill, causing injuries to his eyes, and robbed him of a diamond ring.

The case was registered under Sections 118(2) (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 324(4) (mischief), 3(5) (common intention), and 109 (attempt to murder) of the BNS, 2023.

The petitioners contended the injuries were non-grievous and the medical report contradicted the use of a sharp weapon.

1. Whether the materials in the Case Diary prima facie establish the ingredients of attempt to murder under Section 109 of the BNS to warrant custodial interrogation.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail based on the nature of the accusations and the medical evidence.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

It relied on *Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra*, establishing parameters for bail including the nature of gravity, antecedents, and the "last option" theory of arrest.

Regarding Section 307 IPC (now Section 109 BNS), the court referenced *Gulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal*, which mandate that "intention or knowledge" to commit murder must be established through the facts and circumstances.

It also noted *Maniklal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh*, which mandate that "intention or knowledge" to commit murder must be established through the facts and circumstances.

It also noted *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement* regarding the balance between personal liberty and societal interest in exercising extraordinary powers.

The Court analyzed the medical report and witness statements in the Case Diary, noting a significant discrepancy between the FIR and the evidence.

While the FIR alleged a "sharp cutting weapon," the Medical Officer concluded the injuries were caused by a "hard and blunt object" and characterized the primary wound as "non-grievous."

Furthermore, one independent eye-witness stated the victim was only assaulted by "fist and blows," which corroborated the medical findings rather than the FIR.

The Court observed that because the injuries did not align with the use of a deadly weapon and one witness did not support the robbery allegation, the applicability of Sections 109 and 118(2) of the BNS was "prima facie doubtful."

As there was no history of criminal antecedents and the prosecution failed to show a specific need for custodial interrogation, the Court found that the high threshold for denying anticipatory bail was not met.

It held that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety, subject to conditions: weekly reporting to the police station for three months, remaining within the State of Tripura without prior judicial permission, and non-interference with witnesses.

The application was disposed of accordingly.