Anticipatory bail may be denied in serious offences involving injuries to vital body parts where prima facie evidence exists and custodial interrogation is necessary for the recovery of weapons and a fair investigation.

ORAL ORDER

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant – accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11195007250649 / 2025 registered with Bhabhar Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 89(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNSS Act

2. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that there is no whisper in the F.I.R. showing that the applicant have done anything in the alleged act or played any active role in the alleged offence. Moreover the applicant himself was injured in the incident and the complainant was blaming the applicant, from the F.I.R., the applicant has not played any role in inflicting injury to any person. It has been argued that there is no prime facie active role played by the applicant, which can be emerged from the F.I.R. Moreover, the injured persons were discharged from the hospital and the petitioner has nothing to do with injuries as the applicant was not present at the scene of offence. There was a cross F.I.R. filed by the brother of the applicant against the complainant on the very same day. It has been argued that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence much less offence under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNSS Act. The applicant is having no past antecedents and it has been argued that the present F.I.R. has been filed to tarnish the image of the applicant. He is falsely implicated in the offence.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that the applicant is facing charges under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 189(2), 191(2, 191(3) and 190 of BNSS Act. The applicant is explicitly named in the First Information Report as accused no.5. The F.I.R. clearly shows the role of the present applicant, in view of the fact that the applicant had caused injuries to the complainant on the head with an iron Tommy and even in the M.L.C. certificate, the following injuries have been noted:

“(1) Surgically stitched wound, 4.5 cm in length over right frontal region of head with red blood clot present.

(2) Avulsed laceration, 3.5x2x0.5 cm, red color over tip of nose and right side of tip of nose with underlying cartilage exposed and skin absent at wound area.

(3) Diffuse swelling present over left ankle.

(4) Abrasion, 2.5x1 cm, red color over front left knee.

(5) Abrasion, vertical, 7x0.5 cm, red color over front aspect of left mid leg.

(6) Contusion, 10x4.5 cm, red color over back of left upper arm.”

The learned APP emphasizes that the weapon involved are yet to be recovered,

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and considered the material placed on record. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment