The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is not denied merely due to the seriousness of allegations when counter complaints exist and injuries are non-vital, provided stringent conditions are imposed to prevent recurrence of violence. This order underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing individual liberty with public order in familial disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, members of the Shelke family, seek anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 467 of 2025 registered at Kallam Police Station, Dharashiv district, under Sections 119-1, 118-1, 115-2, 189-2, 189-4, 191-2, 191-3, 190, 352, and 351-2 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). The allegations stem from a violent altercation on 14.12.2025 between two branches of the Shelke family. The complainant, Abhijeet Shelke, accuses the applicants of causing grievous hurt using dangerous weapons. However, a counter FIR, Crime No. 469 of 2025, was registered by Uma Shelke, one of the applicants, alleging that Abhijeet and his family members assaulted her and Prabhakar Shelke.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 14.12.2025 at Shelka Dhanora village, Taluka Kallam, District Dharashiv.
- The complainant, Abhijeet Shelke, sustained simple injuries on his right wrist, as per the injury certificate.
- Applicant Uma Shelke suffered three injuries; applicant Prabhakar Shelke suffered five injuries.
- Applicants Seema Balasaheb Shelke and Balasaheb Babruwan Shelke were not present at the scene during the incident and arrived only after it concluded.
- Applicant Bhairu Shelke was attending a public function in Dharashiv at 7:00 p.m. on 14.12.2025, presided over by the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, and could not have been present at the scene.
- The counter FIR (No. 469 of 2025) was filed on 16.12.2025, two days after the incident, due to medical treatment required by Uma Shelke.
- The applicants have no prior criminal record and have cooperated with the investigation since the interim order.
Procedural History
- 14.12.2025: Alleged assault incident occurs between two branches of the Shelke family.
- 16.12.2025: Counter FIR No. 469 of 2025 registered by Uma Shelke.
- 2025: Crime No. 467 of 2025 registered against applicants by Abhijeet Shelke.
- 04.02.2026: High Court grants ad-interim anticipatory bail with conditions: applicants to report to police and cooperate with investigation.
- 13.03.2026: Final hearing on anticipatory bail application before Justice Mehroz K. Pathan.
Relief Sought
The applicants seek permanent anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevent further escalation of violence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted in cases involving allegations of grievous hurt under the BNSS when there is a counter FIR, the complainant sustained only minor injuries, and the applicants have demonstrated cooperation with the investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel argued that the applicants are falsely implicated, as evidenced by the counter FIR and the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant. She emphasized that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents, had fully cooperated with the investigation since the interim order, and that the incident arose from a long-standing family dispute. She further submitted that the applicants Bhairu, Seema, and Balasaheb were not present at the scene and thus could not have participated in the alleged assault. The counsel relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted where the threat of arrest is based on false or exaggerated allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The learned APP opposed the application on the ground that the offences under the BNSS are serious, punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment, and that the history of violence between the families increases the risk of further offences. He contended that granting bail without strict conditions might embolden the applicants to retaliate, thereby disturbing public peace. He argued that the existence of a counter FIR does not negate the seriousness of the original allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of injuries sustained by both parties and found that the complainant’s injury - a simple wound on the right wrist - was not to a vital part of the body. In contrast, the applicants Uma and Prabhakar suffered multiple injuries, corroborating their version of events. The Court noted that the counter FIR was filed promptly after medical treatment, explaining the two-day delay. The Court emphasized that the applicants had already complied with the interim conditions, reporting to the police and cooperating fully.
"Perusal of the investigation papers shows that the applicants have attended the police station and have cooperated with the investigation as directed by this Court vide interim order dated 4.2.2026."
The Court held that the apprehension of further offences could be mitigated through stringent conditions rather than outright denial of bail. It distinguished this case from those involving premeditated violence or organized crime, noting that this was a localized family dispute with mutual allegations. The Court further observed that denying bail solely on the basis of the potential for future violence, without concrete evidence of intent, would violate the principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The application is allowed. The interim order dated 04.02.2026 is confirmed. The applicants shall report to the Kallam Police Station as and when called until the filing of the charge sheet. They shall not enter the village of Shelka Dhanora except in emergencies with prior permission from the Superintendent of Police, Dharashiv. Applicants Seema and Balasaheb Shelke are permitted to enter the village for one week for their daughter’s engagement ceremony. They shall submit Aadhar, PAN, mobile numbers, and addresses of two near relatives to the Investigating Officer. Tampering with evidence is strictly prohibited. A single violation of any condition shall lead to cancellation of bail. The application stands disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Counter FIRs Undermine Sole Allegations
- Practitioners must highlight counter complaints in anticipatory bail applications to demonstrate the possibility of false implication.
- Courts are more likely to grant bail where both parties have sustained injuries and filed mutual complaints.
Minor Injuries Do Not Preclude Bail
- Simple injuries, especially to non-vital areas, reduce the perceived gravity of the offence and support the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Injury certificates must be submitted as evidence to substantiate claims of disproportionate allegations.
Conditions Over Denial
-
Courts prefer tailored conditions - such as restricted movement, reporting obligations, and surrender of identity documents - over outright denial of bail.
-
Violation of any single condition is sufficient for cancellation, making compliance non-negotiable.
-
Always request specific, enforceable conditions rather than generic assurances.
-
Use the existence of mutual FIRs to argue against the prosecution’s claim of one-sided victimhood.
-
Ensure clients comply strictly with interim conditions to strengthen the case for permanent bail.
