Judgment · High Court · 2026

Judgment

#1. 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR for grant of No.49 dated , registered for the offences punishable under dated 20.04.2026, registered for the offences punishable under , registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 11 5(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, at 5(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023, Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. Police Station

#2. out in the petition in hand) a case, As per the allegations (as set-out in the petition in hand) a case, As per the allegations (as set

registered at Police Station Model Town, FIR No. 49 dated 20.04.2026 got registered at Police Station Model Town, registered at Police Station Model Town, FIR No. 49 dated 20.04.2026 Hoshiarpur, wherein it had been alleged that Hoshiarpur, on 11.04.2026 the petitioner been alleged that on 11.04.2026 the petitioner accused formed an unlawful Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co-accused formed an unlawful Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co Narinder Kumar @ Nanna along with his co assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh assembly and attacked complainant Sandeep Kumar and Balwinder Singh with deadly weapons. deadly weapons. It has been further alleged that the petitioner is It has been further alleged that the petitioner is blow on the forehead of the complainant alleged to have inflicted a Khanda blow on the forehead of the complainant blow on the forehead of the complainant alleged to have inflicted a and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused and another blow on the face of Balwinder Singh, while the other accused CRM-M- -34483-2026 2 persons also assaulted the victims with s also assaulted the victims with sharp edged weapons and a baseball harp-edged weapons and a baseball bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and bat. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question has been registered and investigation ensued. investigation ensued.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the on account of petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question on account of petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in quest Learned counsel has further iterated previous enmity between the parties. Learned counsel has further iterated Learned counsel has further iterated previous present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated that the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to FIR No. 50 dated

20.04.2026, which has been registered at the instance of the daughter 20.04.2026, which of the registered at the instance of the daughter of the occurrence involving the complainant party. petitioner regarding an earlier occurrence involving the complainant party. occurrence involving the complainant party. petitioner allegations levelled against the petitioner According to learned counsel, the allegations levelled against the petitioner allegations levelled against the petitioner According to learned counsel, the are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert are exaggerated and have been made with an ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the petitioner and his family. pressure upon contended and his family. It has been further contended that there is registration of the FIR in question there is a considerable delay in the registration of the FIR in question registration of the FIR in question which casts serious doubt on the story put forth by the which casts serious doubt on the It has story put forth by the prosecution. It has complainant has deliberately suppressed the been further contended that the complainant has deliberately suppressed the complainant has deliberately suppressed the been further contended that the true and material there is no independent or corroborative material and material facts and there is no independent or corroborative material there is no independent or corroborative material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It has been further contended that co-accused Bimla Devi, contended and Anil Kumar @ Surjit Kaur and Anil Kumar @ have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by Goldy have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court and hence Coordinate Bench of n the principle of parity, the and hence on the principle of parity, the petitioner deserves to be granted the concession of pre petitioner deserves arrest bail. It has concession of pre-arrest bail. It has been further submitted that no recovery is been further submitted to be effected from the petitioner that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, the , therefore, the custodial interrogation is not required in custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the petitioner has the facts and circumstances of the case. the facts and circumstances of the case. clean antecedents; deep roots in society clean antecedents f the deep roots in society; there is no likelihood of the CRM-M- -34483-2026 3 prosecution evidence petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending and hence him behind the no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bars. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for. bail is entreated for.

#4. earned State counsel has opposed the grant of Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of earned State counsel has opposed the grant of has been anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the petitioner has been anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the as he is the main accused. Learned State specifically named in the FIR as he is the main accused. Learned State as he is the main accused. Learned State specifically named in the FIR counsel has iterated that the FIR contains spec counsel has iterated that ific and direct allegations the FIR contains specific and direct allegations blow on the against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a Khanda blow on the against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a against the petitioner, who is stated to have inflicted a forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder forehead of the complainant and another blow on the face of Balwinder Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Singh. Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Referring to status report dated 04.07.2026, by way of affidavit of Division City, shan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division City, shan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Kalbhushan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries District Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel has submitted that five injuries have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has have been caused on the complainant and as per the MLR injury No.1 has elevant of the said status report been declared to be grievous in nature. The relevant of the said status report been declared to be grievous in nature. The r been declared to be grievous in nature. The r reads thus: reads thus: That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries “That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries That it is submitted that the following is the injury chart of the injuries received by the complainant Injur y No. MLR 1.

#2. Name of Accused Name Injured Person Weapo Weapo Seat of Injury Nature Injury n Used n Used Offenc Offenc e Petition Narinde r Kumar @ Nanna Anil Kumar Goldi Sharp/Grievo 118(2) 118(2) BNS BNS Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Iron Iron Khand Khand a On the side of forehea d Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan On the Kirpan Blunt/simple side of 115(2) 115(2) BNS BNS CRM-M- -34483-2026

#4. Unknow n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Anil Kumar Goldi Complaina nt Sandip Kumar

#5. Unknwo n person Complaina nt Sandip Kumar Kirpan On the Kirpan Blunt/simple Kirpan On the Kirpan Blunt/simple side of Kirpan On the Kirpan Blunt/simple side of 4 115(2) 115(2) BNS BNS 115(2) 115(2) BNS BNS 115(2) 115(2) BNS BNS

#6. That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described That in the MLR of injured Balwinder Singh, the doctor described one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. one injury caused with sharp weapon and was kept on surgical opinion. The true copy of MLR of complainant is annexed as annexure R

#3. After complainant is annexed as annexure R-3. After that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in that the doctor declared injury no.1 of Balwinder Singh to be sharp in nature. The true copy of opinion of doctor is annexed as annexure R- nature. The true copy of opinion of doctor is annexed as annexure R -2.” Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report, Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid status report earned State counsel has contended that the learned State counsel has weapon of offence is yet to be that the weapon of offence is yet to be custodial interrogation of the petitioner is recovered and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is custodial interrogation of the petitioner is recovered and necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain necessary for effective investigation and for unearthing the complete chain that in case the petitioner is granted of events. It has been further contended that in case the petitioner is granted that in case the petitioner is granted of events. anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, the concession of anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, anticipatory bail, it may adversely affect the investigation, the concession of likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or as there is every likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or likelihood of the petitioner influencing witnesses or as there is every tampering with evidence. Considering the gravity o tampering with evidence. f the offence and the Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is manner in which it was committed, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for. prayed for.

#5. and have I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have I have heard the learned counsel for the gone through the available record of the case. gone through the available record of the case. gone through the available record of the case. CRM-M- -34483-2026 5

#6. er herein to a judgment passed by the It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the er herein to a judgment passed by the Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as relevant whereof Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, reads as under: reads as under: “12. Court In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court In a case containing such serious allegations, the High ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against hand to take the arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that fficer who, has been prevented appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented appearance before the Investigating O from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 “15. Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant 16. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be r words, the complainant says that the High cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High r words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order ed should passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accus be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. tion of law that if no case for There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for There appears to be a serious misconcep custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground would be a good ground would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along while deciding an application seeking anticipatory with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie nd he should case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked a be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court CRM-M- -34483-2026 6 hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the along with the severity of the punishment. offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

#7. material available on record as also the stand of the As per the material available on record as also the stand of the material available on record as also the stand of the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the State, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the , indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous petitioner. The allegations in the present case disclose a grave and heinous offence wherein the petitioner is alleged to offence wherein the petitioner is alleg the complainant ed to have attacked the complainant and inflicted multiple blows aimed at the and inflicted multiple blows aimed at As per the the vital parts of his body. As per the the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be the role attributed to the petitioner is that he is alleged to be allegations and inflicted a blow on the forehead of the and inflicted a blow on the forehead of th armed with a Khanda and inflicted a blow on the forehead of th armed with a complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one complainant namely Sandeep Kumar and another blow on the face of one Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively Balwinder Singh. The allegations indicate that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused participated in the occurrence and acted in concert with the other accused to the petitioner is direct, specific and persons. Hence, the role attributed to the petitioner is direct, specific and to the petitioner is direct, specific and persons. Hence, the role attributed accused who are alleged only to have distinguishable from that of the co-accused who are alleged only to have accused who are alleged only to have distinguishable from that of the co accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations prima accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations accompanied or instigated the assailants. At this stage, the allegations e commission of indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in the commission of indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in th facie indicate the active involvement of the petitioner in th he petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the the offence. The petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the he petitioner has been attributed a direct and active role in the the offence. T commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in commission of the offence. The allegations are not general or omnibus in The nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. The nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. nature but disclose a specific act of assault with a deadly weapon. medical evidence on record reflects multiple injuries medical evidenc one of which has been e on record reflects multiple injuries, one of which has been plea with regard to the existence of plea with regard to the existence declared grievous in nature. The plea with regard to the existence declared grievous in nature. previous enmity is a matter that may be examined during previous enmity trial, is a matter that may be examined during the course of trial, CRM-M- -34483-2026 7 grant of anticipatory bail , the same cannot be made a sole ground for the grant of anticipatory bail , the same cannot be made a sole ground for and, the same cannot be made a sole ground for when there are specific and grave allegations. when there are specific The manner in which the allegations. The manner in which the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the alleged assault was carried out using deadly weapon demonstrates the plausible violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause nay plausible violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause violent and aggressive conduct of the petitioner. No cause en shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the en shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the cause has be petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. The argument accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is that the co-accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail is that the co he plea of parity cannot be claimed also of no help to the petitioner as the plea of parity cannot be claimed he plea of parity cannot be claimed also of no help to the petitioner as t Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the mechanically. Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the mechanically. role attributed to the petitioner prima facie role attributed to the petitioner appears to be direct, active and prima facie appears to be direct, active and distinguishable from that of the co-accused who ha distinguishable from that of the co accused who have been granted thereby disentitling the petitioner from concession of anticipatory bail; thereby disentitling the petitioner from thereby disentitling the petitioner from concession of Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co- claiming parity. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co claiming parity. accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of the gravity of allegations materially differ. participation and the gravity of allegations materially differ. participation and

#8. Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a Furthermore, the plea of false implication on account of a case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon cross-case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon case is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon settled while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well settled while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is well that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 BNS, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of accused, the likelihood of fleeing from justice and the possibility of f tampering with evidence of f tampering with evidence o influencing witnesses. The scope of influencing witnesses. The scope of influencing witnesses. The scope of consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited consideration of evidence/material at the stage of anticipatory bail is limited and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or and the Court cannot go into the detailed appreciation of evidence or determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during determine its admissibility, which is a matter to be decided during CRM-M- -34483-2026 8 At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that course of trial. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that course of trial. case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false case is not made out against the petitioner. The plea of false prima facie implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No implication on account of previous enmity is vague and unsubstantiated. No n record to show existence of any such enmity or material has been placed on record to show existence of any such enmity or n record to show existence of any such enmity or material has been placed o motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence motive for false implication. Bald assertions without supporting evidence The material which cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. The material which cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. cannot be made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail. preliminary has come on record, including the medical evidence and preliminary has come on record, including the medical evidence and has come on record, including the medical evidence and to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. investigation, appear Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. State v.