ORDER

This first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.386/2026 registered at Police Station- Kotwali, District Narmadapuram for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 331(6), 296(b), 115(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 .

3. Indisputably, the applicant is an elected President of the District Bar Association in Narmadapuram, while the complainant, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, served as its elected Treasurer. During an office-bearers' meeting on 17.04.2026, a dispute arose. This disagreement led to a WhatsApp altercation between the complainant and the applicant’s son, Rohan in the group chat of Bar Association.

4. According to the prosecution, the applicant called the complainant (from mobile number 9827210074 to 8770704352), using abusive language and warning that his sons, Rohan and Munnu, were on their way to assault him. Subsequently, on 17.04.2026 at approximately 10:15 PM, while the complainant was in his office with Advocate Keshav Singh and an employee, Durgesh, the co-accused Rohan and Munnu forcibly entered. They allegedly abused and assaulted the complainant, causing him injuries.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant sanguinely submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is vehemently submitted that even taking the prosecution’s case at face value, no active role is attributed to the present applicant, and no prima facie case is made out regarding the alleged offences. The applicant was neither present at the spot nor did he directly abuse the complainant or any other person. Furthermore, the Call Detail Records (CDR) completely falsify the prosecution's narrative. The records reveal that it was the complainant who initiated calls to the applicant twice on 17.04.2026 between 22:16 PM and 22:27 PM, rather than the applicant calling the complainant. The learned Senior Counsel submits that this is a case of absolutely 'no evidence' against the present applicant, thereby making a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be given benefit of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the accused persons have caused injuries to the complainant at the instance of the applicant as it is revealed from the FIR itself, and more importantly the applicant is named in the FIR and the matter is under investigation, therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Learned Counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the bail application on similar lines and additionally submits that the local police have failed to take appropriate action against the co-accused persons to date, demonstrating that the investigating agency is working under the undue influence and pressure of the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons, who are the sons of the present applicant, assaulted and caused injuries to the complainant at the direct instigation of the applicant. Consequently, the applicant is disentitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that since the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for brevity "SC/ST Act") have been invoked in the present case, the statutory bar created thereunder completely precludes the maintainability of an application for anticipatory bail.

8. In response to the arguments pertaining to the provisions of SC/ST Act, learned senior counsel for the app