Anticipatory bail can be denied when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in a crime, including corroborating witness statements and video footage.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNS S in case FIR No. 545 dated 29.09.2024 under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(1) of the BNS registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor assigned any specific role in the alleged occurrence. In fact, the petitioner was not even present at the time of the incident. It has been asserted that the petitioner’s implication in the instant case is solely based on a disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused Vipin, who falsely claimed that the petitioner was present with him when the complainant was assaulted. It has been argued that the said disclosure statement, apart from having minimal evidentiary value, is the only material against the petitioner, and there is no independent evidence linking him to the alleged crime. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner therefore, deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Rahul Mohan, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Haryana who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. On being put to notice, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the petition. While conceding that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, it is argued that the FIR, annexed as Annexure P-1, itself reveals a premeditated assault carried out by a group of about six persons. The assailants arrived at the scene in a car and, without any provocation, attacked the complainant, causing serious injuries, including head injuries that rendered him unconscious. The complainant was immediately admitted to the hospital by passers by. It is further submitted, on instructions, that co-accused Vipin, who was specifically named in the FIR, upon interrogation after his arrest, categorically stated that the petitioner was among those who actively participated in the assault. Additionally, learned State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that CCTV footage retrieved from the scene of the incident shows the petitioner alighting from the car along with the co-accused and inflicting leg and fist blows on the complainant. As per the learned State counsel, the complainant sustained seven injuries, including two on his head, four of which were declared dangerous to life.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

7. It is evident, prima facie, that the attacked was unprovoked and carried out by all the accused in concert, including the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not named in the FIR, his presence at the scene of the crime is reflected in the CCTV footage, wherein he can be seen assaulting the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding false implication cannot be examined at this stage while considering a petition for anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.