The court denied anticipatory bail based on the severity of injuries sustained by the complainant, indicating potential culpability of the petitioner.

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

296(b), 117(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.4 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, due to a monetary dispute, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant severely, resulting in the amputation of the defacto complainant’s leg. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the injury sustained by the defacto complainant was not due to the attack by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the amputation had taken place only due to the assault made by the petitioner and therefore prayed for the dismissal of the petition seeking anticipatory bail. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, and particularly the fact that the defacto complainant’s leg had to be amputated, this Court is of the view that it would not be desirable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.