Bombay High Court
Bhushan Chandrakant Bhanushali vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 August, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally signed
by CHITRA
2025:BHC-AS:36717 CHITRA
SANJAY
SANJAY
SONAWANE
Date:
SONAWANE 2025.08.26
22:13:03
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Anticipatory Bail Application No.2315 of 2025
Bhushan Chandrakant Bhanushali,
Age-42 yrs, Occ: Business,
R/at : Bunglow Plot No.9,
Sushrty, Pipeline Road, Louiswadi,
New Apna Ghar, VTC Thane-400601 ... Applicant.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Shrinagar Police
Station in FIR No.566 of 2025)
2. Abhijit Bharat Patil
Age -30 yrs,
R/o 2nd Floor, Brijesh Niwas,
Near Mulund Court, SN Road,
Mulund (West), Mumbai.
3. Dilip Hiro Raichandani
Age: 41 yrs, R/o: N-1302,
Mayuresh Shrishti, LBS road,
Bhandup (West), Mumbai-78. ... Respondents.
----
Mr Amit Desai, Senior Advocate, along with Mr Vishal
Bhanushali, Mr Saurabh Butala, Mr Harshad Sathe, Mr Jayesh
Tikhe, Mr Vinay Bhanushali, Ms Manvi Sharma, Mr Siddhesh
Bane, and Mr Jitesh Bhanushali, for the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for respondent No.1/ State.
Page 1 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
Mr Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate, along with Mr
Vishwanath Patil, Mr Rajan Gurnani, Mr Swaraj Sabale, Mr
Pradip Patil, Ms Nidhi Chavan and Mr Kedar Nhavkar, i/b.
Harshwardhan Karande, for respondent No.2.
Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate, along with Mr Vishwanath
Patil, Mr Kedar Nhavkar, Mr Shantanu Katkar and Ms Nidhi
Chavan, i/b. Mr Akshay Naidu, for respondent No.3.
API Shivraj Bendre, Shrinagar Police Station, Thane, is present.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 25 August 2025.
P.C.:
The present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR
No.566 of 2025, registered at Shrinagar Police Station, Thane
City, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),
118(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 324(5), 333, 352, 531(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3 and 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959.
2. The prosecution alleges that on 16 July 2025, the
applicant accompanied by a mob of 15 to 20 persons,
unlawfully trespassed into the office of Square Feet Group,
where the informant, injured and others were holding a
meeting. It is alleged that the applicant and his associates,
Page 2 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
forming an unlawful assembly, vandalised the premises and
assaulted the informant and his associates with kicks, punches,
and improvised weapons such as paperweights, flowerpots,
glass cups and broken furniture. The applicant further
brandished a revolver during the assault, instigated others, and
issued threats to prevent the informant from carrying out his
business. Abhijit Patil sustained serious head injuries, the
informant was brutally beaten, and a Rolex wristwatch was
stolen. The building lift attendant, Dwivedi, was also assaulted.
.
3. Mr Amit Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant, submitted that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen
who has been unjustly and maliciously implicated in the present
criminal proceedings. It is contended that the genesis of the
prosecution’s case stems from an antecedent incident that
transpired in the lift area of the premises, wherein the
applicant’s minor son, Master Veer, was subjected to wrongful
and inappropriate physical aggression by the informant and his
associates. The said act, it is submitted, was unprovoked and
amounted to unwarranted intimidation of a child. In response
to this misconduct, and solely in his capacity as a concerned
parent, the applicant is stated to have entered the office cabin
of one Mr Sachin Mirani with the limited intent of seeking an
explanation from the informant regarding the aforementioned
Page 3 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
incident. The First Information Report (FIR), it is urged, has
been instituted not as a bona fide complaint but as a retaliatory
counterblast, calculated to shield the informant and his
associates from the legal consequences of their own unlawful
conduct towards the minor child.
4. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that there
was an inordinate delay of approximately eight hours in the
registration of the FIR, which materially undermines the
spontaneity and credibility of the allegations therein. It is
submitted that the FIR is embellished with exaggerations and
suffers from material omissions, particularly the deliberate
concealment of the incident concerning Master Veer in the lift
area. It is further urged that the applicant is not alleged to have
been an active participant in any assault, and that the
allegations of his purportedly brandishing a revolver at one
Abhijit Patil have been introduced at a belated stage, seemingly
with the intent to amplify the seriousness of the allegations and
thereby justify the invocation of non-bailable offences.
5. It is pointed out that the initial FIR is conspicuously silent
on any allegation of the applicant having displayed or
threatened the informant or Abhijit Patil with a firearm. The
subsequent embellishment of the prosecution’s case, wherein
such allegations were introduced for the first time, appears to
Page 4 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
be a calculated attempt to invoke Section 109 of the BNS, and
Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, without any
foundational basis in fact or law.
6. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, barring the
offences under Sections 333 and 118(1) of the BNS, all other
offences alleged against the applicant are bailable in nature. The
CCTV footage available on record unequivocally establishes
that the applicant neither participated in any physical
altercation nor exhibited any weapon, contrary to the
allegations levelled against him. Furthermore, the footage
depicts Abhijit Patil moving about in a normal and unperturbed
manner immediately following the purported incident, thereby
casting serious doubt on his assertions of having suffered
grievous injury or being under imminent threat. There are no
visible bloodstains on his attire, nor is there any indication of
police presence at the location, which further erodes the
credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
7. It is further submitted that the applicant has neither
employed nor resorted to the use of any weapon and, in bona
fide demonstration of his cooperation, has voluntarily
surrendered his licensed firearm to the investigating authorities.
Such conduct, it is urged, obviates any necessity for custodial
interrogation. Furthermore, the applicant has since relocated
Page 5 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
his office from the premises in question, thereby excluding any
possibility of tampering with evidence or exerting influence
upon witnesses.
8. Mr Desai further submitted that no prima facie case is
made out against the applicant, and there exists no material,
direct or circumstantial, that connects him with the commission
of the alleged offences. The invocation of Section 333 of the
BNS is legally untenable, as the essential ingredients of criminal
trespass are conspicuously absent. The FIR itself records that
the informant was present at the premises for a business
meeting with Square Feet Group, and the applicant’s presence
was solely for the purpose of confronting the informant
regarding the misconduct towards his child. Thus, the
allegation of unlawful entry or remaining therein with intent to
commit an offence is wholly misconceived.
9. With respect to Section 118(1) of the BNS, it is submitted
that the FIR does not contain any averment of the applicant
having used or been armed with any dangerous weapon or
instrument capable of causing death or grievous hurt. There is
no allegation of intent to cause hurt, nor any voluntary act
attributable to the applicant that could be construed as such.
Consequently, the invocation of Section 118(1) is legally
unsustainable.
Page 6 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
10. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
allegations under the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 109 of the
BNS, having been introduced at a subsequent stage, are devoid
of evidentiary support and appear to be the result of
progressive embellishment. The remand applications and
supplementary submissions filed by the prosecution reveal a
pattern of artificial escalation, indicative of mala fides and a
vindictive prosecution aimed at harassing the applicant. The
escalation of charges appears to be a retaliatory measure in
response to the complaint lodged by the applicant’s son against
the informant and the incident involving one Bharat Patil,
father of the injured, who trespassed and misbehaved with the
applicant’s staff.
11. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed on record that
the applicant has an unblemished antecedent, with no prior
involvement in any criminal activity. There is no recovery or
discovery pending at his instance, and he undertakes to abide
by any conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper in
the event of the grant of anticipatory bail. In support of his
contentions, Mr Desai relies on (i) Walmik Vs State of
Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 449; (ii) Shivaji Vs State
of Maharashtra, 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 423; (iii) Rajendra
Narayan Nalawade Vs State of Maharashtra, 2000 SCC
Page 7 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
OnLine Bom 711; (iv) Om Prakash Vs State of Punjab, 1961
SCC OnLine SC 72; and (v) Sonu Choudary v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4096.
12. At the outset, Mr Arfan Sait, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/ State, submitted
that the present application for anticipatory bail deserves to be
rejected in limine, having regard to the gravity of the offence
and the applicant’s pivotal role in its commission. It is
submitted that the alleged incident is not a spontaneous or
isolated occurrence but rather a premeditated and retaliatory
act, arising out of a minor interpersonal dispute involving the
applicant’s son. The applicant, driven by vengeance, has
orchestrated a deliberate and violent intrusion into the office
premises of Square Feet Group, wherein he, along with a group
of co-accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly with the
common object of causing grievous harm and destruction.
13. The said assembly, under the applicant’s leadership and
instigation, forcibly entered the premises and launched a brutal
assault upon the informant and his associates. The nature of the
attack was egregious and calculated, involving physical blows
kicks and punches as well as the use of improvised weapons
including broken furniture (chairs and tables), paperweights,
flowerpots, and glass tumblers. The applicant also brandished a
Page 8 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
revolver during the assault and actively incited the co-accused
to inflict injuries upon the victims.
14. The injuries sustained by the victims are of a serious
nature. One Mr Abhijit Patil suffered a profusely bleeding head
injury resulting in loss of consciousness, while the informant
was assaulted on his head and genital region. The victims were
only spared further harm due to the timely intervention of
bystanders present at the scene. It is further submitted that the
applicant, undeterred by the public intervention, continued his
aggressive conduct by issuing threats to the informant, warning
him against resuming business operations or entering the
premises. In a final act of aggression, the applicant assaulted the
lift operator while exiting the building, thereby causing
additional injuries.
15. The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution is
in possession of direct eyewitness accounts and corroborative
CCTV footage which prima facie implicate the applicant in the
commission of the offence. The investigation is at a nascent
stage, and several critical aspects remain unresolved, including
the recovery of weapons used in the assault and the
identification and apprehension of certain co-accused persons
who remain at large. The learned APP additionally submitted
that the applicant unlawfully entered the office premises along
Page 9 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
with the co-accused, who are known to have multiple prior
criminal antecedents of a similar nature.
16. In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the applicant
is the mastermind and instigator of the offence. His custodial
interrogation is imperative for the recovery of the weapons,
identification of absconding co-accused, and unearthing the full
scope of the conspiracy. Granting anticipatory bail at this
juncture would not only impede the investigation but also pose
a serious risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation,
thereby undermining the sanctity of the judicial process. In
view of the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of injuries
inflicted, and the applicant’s conduct post-incident, respondent
No.1/ State prayed for the rejection of the present application.
17. Mr Sudeep Pasbola and Mr Shirish Gupte, learned Senior
Counsel appearing respectively for respondent No.2/ injured
and respondent No.3/ informant, jointly and unequivocally
opposed the applicant’s prayer for anticipatory bail. They
submitted that the allegations against the applicant are grave,
substantiated by prima facie material, and indicative of a
premeditated and violent criminal act executed in concert with
co-accused persons.
18. It is jointly submitted that the applicant, along with his
Page 10 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
associates, unlawfully trespassed into the office premises of the
informant with the intent to intimidate and inflict harm.
Without any provocation, the applicant launched a brutal and
indiscriminate assault upon the informant and his colleagues.
The nature of the assault was not limited to physical blows by
fists and kicks but was aggravated by the use of improvised
weapons namely, paperweights employed as blunt instruments,
flower pots wielded as makeshift clubs, and shattered glass
tumblers used to inflict grievous injuries. The respondent
No.2/injured sustained a grievous head injury characterised by
profuse bleeding, which led to a state of unconsciousness. The
CT-Scan report clearly indicates the presence of scalp swelling
accompanied by a subgaleal hematoma localised in the left
parietal region. Moreover, other victims also suffered multiple
contusions and lacerations.
19. In addition to the physical violence, it is alleged that the
applicant and his associates committed theft of a valuable Rolex
wristwatch and caused extensive damage to the office property.
The applicant also issued serious threats, hurled obscene
abuses, and intimidated the victims and potential witnesses,
thereby creating an atmosphere of fear and coercion.
20. The invocation of Section 109 of the BNS, in conjunction
with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, is predicated
Page 11 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
upon credible and cogent material indicating unlawful
possession, preparation, and/or use of arms in furtherance of
the commission of the offence. The learned Senior Counsel
jointly contended that the applicant is not a peripheral
participant but the mastermind of the criminal conspiracy and
execution thereof. His influential status and capacity to
interfere with the investigation and intimidate witnesses pose a
real and imminent threat to the integrity of the investigative
process.
21. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the grant of
anticipatory bail to the applicant would not only obstruct the
ongoing investigation but also jeopardise the safety of the
informant, the injured, and other witnesses. Such relief, if
granted, would result in a miscarriage of justice and undermine
the rule of law. The gravity of the offence, the manner of its
execution, and the applicant’s role therein warrant custodial
interrogation and preclude the invocation of discretionary relief
under Section 482 of the BNSS.
22. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the record.
23. It is a settled position in law that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is extraordinary. While it has been
Page 12 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
acknowledged in many instances that regular bail is considered
a general rule, the same analogy cannot be applied to
anticipatory bail. The decision to grant anticipatory bail must
be exercised with careful and prudent discretion by the Court,
considering each case’s specific circumstances. A straitjacket
formula cannot be applied. While exercising this power, the
Court must exercise caution, as granting protection in serious
cases could lead to a miscarriage of justice or hinder the
investigation by allowing tampering or destruction of evidence.
A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay &
Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.,2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.
24. The case record reveals that the CCTV footage distinctly
captures the applicant within the confines of the informant’s
office at the material time corresponding to the alleged
incident. Such visual documentation, prima facie, substantiates
the applicant’s corporeal presence at the locus criminis and
effectively negates any contention of mistaken identity or false
implication premised on non-presence. Furthermore, the
applicant’s entry into the said premises in the company of co-
accused, bearing criminal antecedents of a similar nature,
cannot be construed as fortuitous or peripheral; rather, it
constitutes an integral link in the sequence of events that
Page 13 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
purportedly culminated in the commission of the alleged
offence.
25. The footage further confirms that the applicant was in
possession of a revolver during the occurrence. Possession of
such a deadly weapon in itself, in circumstances of hostility or
altercation, significantly aggravates the inference of mens rea.
The brandishing of a firearm, even without discharge, is
regarded in law as a demonstrative act designed to instil fear
and establish dominance, and when accompanied by overt
violence, it assumes greater evidentiary value in pointing
towards an intention to cause fatal harm.
26. Beyond the act of brandishing, the applicant is alleged to
have engaged in destructive conduct, committing vandalism
within the office premises, and further escalating matters by
hurling heavy objects such as paperweights, flowerpots, glass
cups and improvised weapons. These objects, by their very
nature and manner of their use, are capable of causing grievous
injury or even death if they strike vital parts of the body. The
fact that the injured actually sustained injuries as a result of
such assault brings the act out of the realm of mere preparation
or intimidation, and squarely into the territory of an attempt to
cause death.
Page 14 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
27. In the present case, the possession and brandishing of a
revolver, coupled with the throwing of lethal objects and the
causing of injuries, collectively demonstrate conduct that
transcends mere threat. The totality of circumstances permits a
reasonable inference that the applicant harboured the intention
or, at the very least, the knowledge that his actions were likely
to cause death. This suffices to attract Section 109 of the BNS,
even if the injuries ultimately inflicted are not life-threatening.
As per the medico-legal certificate on record, the injured
sustained a severe head injury, which caused immediate loss of
consciousness and convulsive episodes. The injury necessitated
urgent medical intervention, including suturing and emergency
care. Furthermore, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. It is
also brought to the notice of this Court that the applicant has
been specifically named in the FIR. The identities of certain
other persons who allegedly participated in the assault are yet
to be ascertained.
28. Although the revolver in question is reportedly licensed,
its deployment in the course of a coordinated and unlawful
intrusion into the office premises, executed by the applicant in
concert with 15 to 20 associates, prima facie constitutes a
misuse of the said weapon. The presence and brandishing of a
firearm, irrespective of its license status, in furtherance of
Page 15 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
criminal intimidation and trespass, attracts penal consequences
under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, which criminalises the
use of any firearm in the commission of an offence. It is well
settled in law that a firearm license does not confer immunity
from prosecution when the weapon is used to facilitate or
escalate criminal activities. In Md. Subhan Vs. State of Orissa,
1990 SCC OnLine 210, it has been held that Section 27 of the
Arms Act,1959, prescribes punishment for possessing a firearm
with intent to use it for any unlawful purpose. A person may
possess a license for a firearm and under that license, he may
have a firearm, but the moment he uses the firearm for any
illegal purpose he commits an offence under Section 27 of the
Act.
29. In the present case, the material placed on record prima
facie discloses that the applicant employed a firearm with the
intent to intimidate the informant and the witnesses. Such
conduct, if substantiated, constitutes an act of criminal
intimidation and may also attract penal consequences under
relevant provisions of the BNS and the Arms Act, 1959,
particularly Sections 351 and 27, respectively. The use of a
weapon prima facie raises concerns regarding the applicant’s
propensity to influence or threaten witnesses. The act of
brandishing the revolver also constitutes criminal intimidation
Page 16 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
under Section 351(2)/ 351(3) of the BNS. The destruction of
property may additionally attract offences under Sections
324(4)(5) and 326(f) of the BNS.
30. The CCTV evidence corroborates the prosecution’s case
on two critical fronts : (i) the applicant’s presence at the scene,
and (ii) his possession of a revolver at the relevant time. When
these circumstances are viewed in conjunction with the acts of
vandalism, violent assault with heavy objects, and actual injuries
caused to the injured, the ingredients of Section 109 of the BNS
are prima facie satisfied. The Courts have consistently
emphasised that the gravity of intention, coupled with an overt
act capable of causing death, is determinative, not merely the
degree of injury caused.
31. In relation to the alleged surrender of the applicant’s
licensed firearm, a plain reading of the letter dated 24 July
2025, authored by the applicant’s brother-in-law and addressed
to the police authorities, clearly demonstrates that the said
firearm was delivered to the police in the absence of the
applicant. Notably, the contents of the letter are devoid of any
indication that such delivery was effected either at the instance
of, or with the consent of, the applicant. The lack of any
express or implied authority vested in the brother-in-law,
together with the fact that the firearm was surrendered in the
Page 17 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
applicant’s knowledge or presence, undermines any assertion
that the act was carried out in good faith, and defeats the
applicant’s later attempt to retrospectively validate the
purported surrender as lawful and bona fide.
32. As regards the complaint filed by the son of the applicant,
it appears that the same was not lodged contemporaneously
with the alleged incident but only after a delay of four days.
The complainant therein, being the son of the applicant, has
failed to provide any cogent or satisfactory explanation for the
said delay in setting the criminal law into motion. Such an
unexplained delay assumes material significance, as it prima
facie casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of the allegations
and the credibility of the version projected in that complaint.
33. The decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant are clearly distinguishable and do not advance the
applicant’s case. The factual matrix and legal issues involved in
those cases are materially different from the present matter, and
as such, the ratio laid down therein cannot be applied to the
facts and circumstances at hand.
34. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations against the applicant are
grave, serious in nature, supported by prima facie material,
Page 18 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 1-ABA-2315-2025.docx
including CCTV footage, eyewitness testimonies, and medical
evidence. The presence and brandishing of a firearm in
furtherance of an unlawful assembly, accompanied by acts of
vandalism and violent assault resulting in serious injuries, rule
out the grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant’s role is not
peripheral but central, and his custodial interrogation is
necessary for effective investigation. Grant of pre-arrest
protection in such circumstances would seriously impede the
investigation, embolden unlawful conduct, and undermine
public confidence in the administration of justice. Accordingly,
the present application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
35. It is clarified that the observations made herein are prima
facie only to determine the applicant’s entitlement to pre-arrest
bail.
[ R.N.Laddha,J. ]
Page 19 of 19
__________________________________________________
25 August 2025
::: Uploaded on – 26/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 27/08/2025 21:18:27 :::
[ad_1]
Source link