AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS') for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.0199 dated 27.04.2026 registered under Sections 126, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS'), at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.
On a complaint submitted by one Sandeep @ Jatni Kinnar, the FIR in question was registered, the translated version of which (as given in Annexure P-1) is as under:-
"It is respectfully submitted that I, applicant Sandeep alias Jatni Kinnar C/O Bulbul Mahant Kinnar, am a resident of Rajiv Colony, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani. The facts are that the accused mentioned above, Vinod, who is not a Kinnar (transgender/eunuch), lives disguised as a Kinnar and forcibly collects badhai (traditional blessings/gifts) in our area. He is a dominant and goon-type person who carries illegal weapons with him at all times. Whenever people from our Kinnar community go to collect badhai, he gets us beaten up by his goons. He gets his men to follow us, and whenever he finds us alone, he gets us attacked. He has made our lives miserable. He has also engaged in scuffles with other people of our community, damaged their vehicles, and attempted to kill them, regarding which an FIR has also been registered against him, but he is not desisting from his antics. He is a criminal-minded person and carries illegal weapons. Mahak and Tina are also colluding with him; they also give threats and wait for an opportunity. Because of them, it has become difficult for us to leave our house, as whenever we go to collect badhai, he gets us attacked. Therefore, it is requested that strict legal action be taken against the accused mentioned above and his goons, and our lives and property be protected, as we face a full threat to our life and property from them. Therefore, you are requested to get the investigation of our above-mentioned case conducted by CIA BHIWANI)."
Concededly, both Sections 126 and 351(2) of the BNS, under which the FIR has been registered, are bailable offences.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that though the offences are bailable, notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued which has raised a reasonable apprehension of arrest. It has been submitted that reply to the same (Annexure P-3) was also given but to no avail. Learned counsel submits that under the circumstances, the concession of anticipatory bail deserves to be granted to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Patna High Court in the cases of Navneet Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar, 2025(5) Bihar Law Judgments 464; Mohammad Raja Versus The State of Bihar and others, 2026(1) Patna Criminal Cases Reporter 39; Gauri Shankar Roy and others Versus State of Bihar, 2015(22) Recent Criminal Reports 495, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pinapala Uday Bhushan Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024(2) Criminal Court Cases 56, the judgment dated 18.07.2019 of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in Contempt Appeal No.45 of 2018 titled as Shri Ashok Kumar Versus M.A. Khaliq, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar Versus State of NCT of Delhi and another, 2018(2) Crimes 601 and the judgments of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar and another, 2014 AIR (Supreme Court) 2756; Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 3386; Md. Asfak Alam Versus The State of Jharkhand and another, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 3610; Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2025 AIR (Supreme Court) 1023 and Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, IA No.63691 of 2025 in MA No.2034 of 2022 in MA No.1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 (decided on 16.07.2025).
Learned State counsel, who is present in Court on advance copy of the petition having been served and Ms. Dhivya Jerath, learned counsel for the complainant, who is also present in Court, have opposed the anticipatory bail application stating that the present petition is a misuse of the process of law since all offences are bailable and, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Concededly, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners punishable under Sections 126 and 351(2) of the BNS are bailable offences. Merely because a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued, would not make the present petition maintainable. Even in case of arrest, the petitioners would be released on bail since the offences alleged to have been committed are bailable offences.
I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. They mainly deal with issuance of a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C./35(3) of the BNSS. It has been held in some judgments that an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of the BNSS would be maintainable. However, the same has been said where the offences are non-bailable and not where the offences are bailable. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, they can always avail other remedies as admissible in law. The same would, in any case, not entitle the petitioners to file a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail.
That being so, the present petition is found to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
However, nothing stated herein above shall be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.