Prima facie involvement in serious assault and potential witness influence preclude grant of anticipatory bail despite no custodial interrogation.

The applicant, the Vice-Sarpanch of his village, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR C.R. No. 11196043260157/2026

On 04.04.2026, the applicant allegedly intercepted the complainant in a Fortuner car, accused him of theft, and assaulted him

Later that day, the applicant, driving a BMW car and accompanied by others, allegedly attacked the complainant and two witnesses with wooden sticks and a sickle

The medical evidence indicated that one victim, Melabhai, sustained multiple fractures requiring surgical intervention with pins and plates

While co-accused persons were granted regular bail, the applicant’s plea for pre-arrest bail was opposed by the State due to the severity of the injuries and his primary role in the offense

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, solely on the grounds that custodial interrogation may not be required

2. Whether the high social status of the applicant (Vice-Sarpanch) and the principle of parity with co-accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail despite the gravity of the injuries caused

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for anticipatory bail

Establishing that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not a standalone ground for bail if a prima facie case exists. (Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022))

Requires courts to evaluate the gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses or repeating offenses. (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011))

The court reasoned that the nature of the assault was premeditated and occurred in two distinct phases involving different luxury vehicles owned by the applicant

In applying the Sumitha Pradeep precedent, the High Court held that the existence of a prima facie case—supported by witness statements and the seizure of the applicant’s vehicles—outweighed the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary

Regarding the gravity of the offense, the court noted that the medical certificate detailed "serious injuries," including multiple segmental and metacarpal fractures, which indicated a violent attack

The court further observed that as a Vice-Sarpanch, the applicant possessed significant social influence, creating a high likelihood that he might intimidate or influence witnesses if released

Parity was denied because the applicant was identified as the "main accused" who initiated the violence

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected, and the rule was discharged