1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants seek anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.11208044250939/2025, dated 08.11.2025, registered at Police Station Pradyumannagar, District - Rajkot, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(1), 352, 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 190 and 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. Appellant No.1 is the son and appellant No.2 is the father. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants attacked the victim and caused injuries on his body including a fracture on his nose.

5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the appellants did not appear before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned Counsel appearing for the State also submitted that both the appellants have prior criminal antecedents. One of the prosecution witnesses was pressurized by the son of appellant No.2, who is incidentally the brother of appellant No.1. Considering the above, there is no need for interference with the impugned order.

6. We are inclined to grant anticipatory bail only to appellant No.2, who is the father, taking into consideration his age.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside insofar as appellant No.2 is concerned and he is granted anticipatory bail on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

8. The appeal stands allowed qua appellant No.2, accordingly.

9. However, insofar as appellant No.1, who is the son, is concerned, we find that he is not cooperating with the investigation. We further take note of the nature of injuries caused to the victim.

10. Accordingly, on the facts of the case, the appeal stands dismissed qua appellant No.1.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.