[1] Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.

[2] The application is filed praying for Pre-Arrest bail of both the accused Shri Krishna Banik and Smt. Bhagya Laxmi Banik in connection with Nutanbazar P.S. Case No.11 of 2026 registered under Sections 109/118(2)/126(2)/329(4),352(3) and Section 3 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(for short-BNS),2023.

[3] Allegations in the FIR filed by the informant, namely Smt. Sumitra Das are that on 28.05.2026 at around 11.30 PM, concerning boundary dispute, there was some word-duel and minor physical assault between the present accused-petitioner No.1, namely Shri Hare Krishna Banik and one Shri Rabindra Das on one part and husband of the informant on the other part. Thereafter, the husband of the informant returned to his house and then again said Hare Krishna Banik and his wife Smt. Bhagya Laxmi Banik entered into their house and said Hare Krishna Banik gave a hit on the head of the informant with a wooden file and caused fracture of her scalp. Thereafter, he also gave further hit on the head of her husband causing serious injury. Subsequently, they got treatment at Nutanbazar Hospital.

[4] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sovan Mahajan for the petitioner strenuously argues that there are long standing land dispute between the parties and both are adjacent neighbor of each other and concerning that issue, actually said petitioner Krishna Banik whose name is shown as Hare Krishna Banik in the FIR, was mercilessly beaten by the informant side and he was initially treated at Nutan Bazar PHC and then he was referred to Gomati district Hospital at Udaipur.

[5] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Mahajan further submits that in this regard an FIR was lodged by Krishna Banik to SP, Gomati which is not registered by the Police till date. Ld. Counsel also refers to the discharge certificate of the petitioner No.1 issued by the Gomati district Hospital authority which shows that he took admission therein on 29.05.2026 and was discharged on 06.06.2026 and he suffered fracture injury in Fibula. Ld. Counsel also refers to the report of CT scan of petitioner No.1 to show that apart from fracture in Fibula, he also suffered fracture in his left nasal bone.

[6] According to Ld. Counsel, Mr. Mahajan, the injuries of the present petitioner was much serious than the alleged injury received by the informant or by her husband and in this regard, he also relies on copy of OPD Ticket of informant to show that only she attended OPD of Nutanbazar PHC on 29.05.2026 and on the same day she was discharged and again on 06.06.2026 she attended said OPD. Ld. Counsel further submits that to attract Section 109 of BNS, there must be intention or knowledge to kill the victim which is absent in this case.

[7] Regarding Petitioner No.2, Ld. Counsel further submits that she was in no way involved in the alleged offence, but, she has been falsely arrayed as an accused in the FIR. Ld. Counsel, on all these grounds, has sought for pre arrest bail of both the petitioners.

[8] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Mahajan also relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2020 decided on 24.01.2020 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that the offence alleged may be grave and serious and there may be several criminal cases pending against the accused, but these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. It appears that said decision is not related to prayer for pre arrest bail.

[9] Ld. Counsel secondly refers to another decision of this Court in Rupak Sutradhar and Anr. vs. State of Tripura [AB 11 of 2026 decided on 03.03.2026], wherein this Court granted pre arrest bail to the petitioner of that case with the observation that one of the eye witnesses had stated that the victim was assaulted only by fist and blows and such version was also corroborating with the medical report and therefore, prima facie applicability of Section 109 and 118(2) of BNS became doubtful in that case. Before arriving to said decision, this Court also referred to several other decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as was relied on by the parties including one case in between the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Harjeet Singh and Anr; 2019 Vol 20 SCC 524 wherein the Apex Court observes that if a person causes hurt with the intention or knowledge that he may cause death, it would attract Section 307 IPC.

[10] Ld. Counsel Mr. Mahajan also relies on another decision in the case of Fireman Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttaranchal(Now Uttarakhand); Criminal Appeal No.1105 of 2015 decided on 25.08.2015, wherein the Apex Court observes that to justify a conviction under Section 307IPC the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murder and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case, while appreciating the evidences, the Apex Court ultimately set aside the conviction imposed upon the appellant under Section 307 IPC.

[11] Ld. PP, during his submission, opposes the prayer submitting that there are prima facie materials under Section 109 of BNS against the petitioner No.1. Regarding Petitioner No.2, namely, Bhagya Laxmi Banik, he submits that grave materials are not there in the case diary against her.

[12] Ld. PP also refers to the injury report of the informant as well as her husband. It appears from the injury report of the husband of the informant that he had suffered simple injury on his parietal region caused by blunt trauma. However, the injury of the informant is serious in nature and the injury so suffered, is lacerated cut injury on the fronto parietal region of significant length of 20cm.

[13] Ld. PP also referring to the written objection submitted by the informant before Ld. Sessions Judge against the prayer for pre arrest bail of the present petitioners submits that apart from the instant case, earlier in 11 (eleven) number of cases chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner No.1, which were related to physical assault upon several persons and in one case, on contest he was convicted and in some cases matter was compromised between the parties, and in some other cases, he got acquittal. According to Ld. PP, there is a history of committing of similar type of offences by Petitioner No.1 on several occasions to different persons. Ld. PP also relies on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sharad Sehgal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740, wherein the Apex Court took note of the fact that the High Court missed to consider the fact that 22 Nos of FIR for different offences were registered against the appellant of said case and ultimately set aside the order of pre-arrest bail granted to him by the High Court.

[14] Ld. Counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh representing the Respondent No.2 relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Khaja vs. The State of Maharashtra; Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2011 decided on 23.08.2023 wherein dealing with the appeal against conviction, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that merely because the injury sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and what was important was an intention coupled with overt act committed by the appellant. In said case there was cogent evidence that the appellant had tried to assault the complainant with Gupti and that too on his head.

[15] In reply to the contention of Ld. PP, Ld. Counsel Mr. Mahajan submits that out of 11 cases, 1 case is now pending against the present petitioner No.1 and in 1 case, though he has been convicted but only fine was awarded and in all other cases, he was acquitted.

               Court has considered the rival contentions of the parties and has gone through the materials placed in the Case Diary.

[16] There are prima facie materials that the petitioner No.1 actually assaulted both the informant and her husband by a wooden file. As stated, there are also materials that the petitioner No.1 caused hurt on the vial part of the headof the informant by said wooden file which caused severe injury in the head.

[17] Therefore, prima facie materials of Section 109, BNS is found available against him. The antecedents of the Petition No.1 also does not appear to be good and in one case he is already convicted and in some cases he got acquittal just because matter was compromised between the parties.

[18] However, there is no grave material against the Petitioner No.2. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of Pre-Arrest bail to Petitioner No.1, but the Petitioner No.2 is found to be entitled to Pre-Arrest bail as prayed for.

               In view of above, the bail prayer is partly allowed.

               The prayer for Pre-Arrest bail of accused Krishna Banik is rejected.

[19] It is therefore, ordered that in the event of arrest of Smt. Bhagya Laxmi Banik in connection with the above said Nutanbazar P.S. Case No.11 of 2026(2026/NTB/011), she shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting authority on condition that:

               i) She will not try, directly or indirectly, to terrorize or influence any of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case;

               ii) She will regularly attend the Court to face trial;

               iii) If it is found lateron that any of these conditions is violated by the Petitioner No.2, the benefit of pre-arrest bail may be cancelled.

[20] As discussed above, Petitioner No.1 has also suffered fracture in his Fibula of left leg and his photograph as submitted from the side of Petitioner No.1 shows that almost covering whole left leg, plaster is given. So, in case he is arrested by the Police, the arresting officer will take note of the said fact and will ensure that proper treatment and care are provided to him so that he does not face any unusual inconvenience or lack of attention or intentional harassment by the police. Needless to say, the arresting officer will also take care of his medical treatment.

With such observation and directions, the bail application is disposed of.

Return the CD with copy of this order.