Ten-day interim protection from arrest granted to enable surrender and seek appropriate relief.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0234 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehradun under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant visited a restaurant where the applicant and other unidentified persons, allegedly under the influence of liquor, abused him and assaulted him by slapping, kicking and punching him and by striking his head with an iron rod.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserted that no specific role was attributed to him, and relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing that he was not carrying any weapon.

He further contended that two Investigating Officers had found no material justifying the addition of Section 109 BNS, which was allegedly added only after a third Investigating Officer assumed charge.

He also relied on the medical report stating that the complainant’s injuries were simple in nature.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation, that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him, and that proceedings under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) had been initiated.

The applicant thereafter stated that he was willing to surrender before the competent court and seek appropriate relief, requesting protection from arrest for a reasonable period.

The State had no objection to that limited request.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted temporary protection from arrest to enable him to surrender before the competent court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law?

2. Whether the protection should be made conditional upon the applicant surrendering within the period fixed by the Court, notwithstanding the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and initiation of proceedings under Section 84 BNSS?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352 and 109 BNS, which formed the basis of the criminal case.

It also considered the effect of the non-bailable warrant and proceedings initiated under Section 84 BNSS, as relied upon by the State.

The governing principle applied was that interim protection may be granted for a limited period to enable an accused who is ready and willing to surrender to appear before the competent court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law; such protection may be conditional and will lapse automatically upon non-compliance with the Court’s direction.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court did not finally determine the applicant’s entitlement to anticipatory bail or adjudicate the disputed allegations concerning his role, the CCTV footage, the addition of Section 109 BNS, or the medical evidence.

Instead, it gave effect to the applicant’s statement that he was ready and willing to surrender and seek appropriate relief before the competent court.

Although the State pointed out the applicant’s alleged non-cooperation, the existing non-bailable warrant and the proceedings under Section 84 BNSS, it had no objection to the applicant being granted a limited period to surrender.

On that basis, the Court exercised its discretion to grant conditional, time-bound protection rather than unrestricted anticipatory bail.

Until the expiry of that period, the applicant was protected from arrest in connection with the stated FIR, provided that he appeared or surrendered within the prescribed period.

If he failed to surrender within ten days, the protection would automatically stand withdrawn, and the non-bailable warrant and proceedings under Section 84 BNSS would remain operative.

The anticipatory bail application was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending applications.