Regular and anticipatory bail refused in a grave assault case involving multiple fractures.

The petitions arose from Muddebihal Police Station Crime No. 87/2026, alleging offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 331(1), 352 and 351(2), read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Accused Nos. 3–5 sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), while accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6–9 sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Accused No. 7 was arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Judge during the pendency of the petitions.

The prosecution alleged that the accused trespassed into the complainant’s house and assaulted his father, who suffered seven grievous injuries, including fractures, and was hospitalised from 10 March to 12 May 2026.

The High Court had previously granted bail, but the Supreme Court set aside that order and restored the petitions for fresh consideration on merits.

1. Whether accused Nos. 3–5 had established grounds for regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

2. Whether accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6–9 had established grounds for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Section 483 BNSS provides for regular bail, while Section 482 BNSS provides for anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were charged under the specified provisions of the BNS, read with Section 190; the Court noted that the alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment for life and triable exclusively by the Sessions Court.

The judgment cited no separate bail precedent or articulated a detailed legal test; it assessed the petitions on the prosecution materials and circumstances before it.

The Court considered the allegations that the petitioners participated in the assault, the victim’s age and extensive grievous injuries, and the medical record showing a hospital stay of more than two months.

It rejected the argument that specific overt acts were attributed only to some accused, noting the complaint alleged that the others also assaulted the victim and assaulted relatives who attempted to intervene.

Given the seriousness of the alleged offence and the materials on record, the Court found no special ground for either form of bail.

It also considered the Supreme Court’s direction that the petitions be reconsidered afresh on their merits.

The anticipatory-bail petition of accused No. 7 was dismissed as infructuous because he had already been arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Judge.

The petitioners were left at liberty to seek regular bail, as applicable, before the Sessions Judge after examination of the material witnesses.