Anticipatory bail may be denied when serious allegations exist and custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair investigation and the recovery of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNS S ’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.123 dated 28.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191 (3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 61(2), 117 of Act and Section 25 -54-59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on 28.03.2025, ASI Subhash, while present at the police post, received an information from the Palwal control room regarding a violent altercation in the village Patli Khurd arising from a land dispute. Responding promptly, ASI Subhash, accompanied by other police personnel, proceeded to the location in a government vehicle. Upon arrival, both disputing parties were initially counselled and directed to appear at the police post with their land ownership documents. Later that day, further information was received indicating a renewed clash at the same location. The police team returned to the spot but found no individuals present. However, weapons including sticks, axes, and hammers allegedly used in the conflict were recovered and taken into custody under a recovery memo, and the process was video- graphed for the evidentiary purposes. Subsequently, the injured persons were located at General Hospital, Palwal, where the police collected the ruqqa and Medico Legal Reports (MLRs). The attending physician noted the absence of Laxman and Manoj and referred the injured Vipin, Rahul, and Vinod to a higher medical facility due to the serious nature of their injuries. The police then returned to the City Police Station, where complainant Lakhanpal submitted a written complaint against 18 named individuals and 30/40 unidentified persons, all residents or affiliates of village Patli Khurd. According to the complainant, villagers had been peacefully protesting on Shamlat Deh land (common village) over the wrongful registration of ownership by one R.C. Agarwal, as reflected in the revenue records. On 26.03.2025, Ashok (son of Raghuveer) allegedly attempted to plough the disputed land on behalf of the said R.C. Agarwal but was stopped by the protestors. On 28.03.2025 at around 11:30 AM, the said Ashok allegedly returned, accompanied by his family members and other hired outsiders which were armed with country made pistols, axes, hammers, sticks and iron rods. They reportedly attacked the protestors with the intent to kill and fired multiple rounds, including direct shots aimed at Vipin, Vinod and Rahul which narrowly missed. Several protestors, including Manoj, Vipin, Vinod and Rahul sustained grievous injuries and some managed to escape by climbing over walls. The assailants allegedly issued threats to end the protest and claimed that the aforesaid R.C. Agarwal had promised them a portion of the land. The situation escalated to a violent and premeditated attack despite earlier instructions given by the SHO. The complainant further narrates that after a villager dialed emergency number 112, police arrived at the scene of occurrence, causing the assailants to flee. The injured were initially treated at GH Palwal, while some referred to advanced medical centers due to the severity of their injuries. The incident was corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, including Krishna and Satish, and a request was made for the appropriate legal action against all the involved accused. On these set of allegations, instant FIR under Sections 190 , 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 109(1), 61(2) of the BNS , 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act was regist