Defence counsel in assault cases lean heavily on the medical classification of injuries: if the doctor calls them simple, the argument runs, custody is unnecessary. Md. Rijwan Ahmad @ Md Rijwan Hasmi v. State of Bihar (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 70187 of 2026, decided 8 October 2026) shows the limit of that argument. The Patna High Court refused anticipatory bail to two accused in a sword-and-rod assault, where even admittedly simple injuries sat on the most unforgiving parts of the anatomy — the head and the region of the eye.
The allegation
The FIR (PS Case No. 430 of 2023, Kesaria police station, East Champaran) alleged that the informant was intercepted near a graveyard. One accused struck him on the head with a sword; another cut him below the eye; the petitioner Md. Islam hit him with an iron rod; and a further accused snatched Rs. 16,000 from his pocket. The sections invoked were 341, 323, 324, 379, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC — culminating in attempt to murder.
The competing cases
Petitioners
False implication; no motive assigned by the informant for the occurrence; the injuries are simple in nature; and the impugned order overstated their antecedents — three prior cases, not four.
State
The injury report shows an incised wound on the left parietal region (about 2 x half an inch, muscle deep), a lacerated wound on the left eyebrow (about 3 x half an inch, muscle deep) and a bruise on the left lower eyelid. The attack targeted vital areas including the eye, and the petitioners may abscond or tamper with evidence if protected.
The outcome
The Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail and rejected the application. The order is short on elaboration — as rejection orders at this stage frequently are — but the material before the Court tells its own story: weapon, target and antecedents aligned against the petitioners, and the concession on injury classification could not neutralise them.
What separates grant from refusal
Read alongside the same judge’s grant of anticipatory bail the same day in a settled family assault case, this rejection maps the working boundaries of the jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC).
| Factor | Points toward protection | Points toward refusal |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of attack | Mutual scuffle, no weapons, injuries on non-vital parts | Weapons used; blows aimed at head, eye or other vital regions |
| Antecedents | Clean record, settled life, community roots | Multiple prior cases, pattern of violence |
| Relations since FIR | Genuine settlement, restored peace | Live hostility, apprehension of tampering or repetition |
| Investigative need | Documents-based case, nothing to recover | Weapon recoveries pending, custodial interrogation justified |
Practice point: in opposing or pressing anticipatory bail, the injury report matters more than the label attached to it. A one-line concession that injuries are “simple” will not help the accused when the wounds are muscle-deep and clustered around the head; conversely, prosecutors who rely on the bare section — 307 IPC — without walking the court through the medical report often lose the point. The anatomy of the injury, quite literally, decides these applications.
Frequently Asked Questions
If injuries are medically simple, why was anticipatory bail refused?
Because the classification of an injury is not the whole story. The State conceded the injuries were simple but pointed to the injury report: an incised wound on the parietal region of the head and a lacerated wound on the eyebrow, both muscle deep, with a bruise on the lower eyelid. Blows aimed at the head and eye with a sword speak to intent and dangerousness, which weigh against pre-arrest protection.
What role did criminal antecedents play?
The petitioners admitted three prior cases, while the impugned order recorded four. Either way, the accused were not persons with clean antecedents, and the State argued they might abscond or tamper with evidence if protected. Antecedents are a central factor in the anticipatory bail discretion.
Does rejection of anticipatory bail mean the accused will be convicted?
No. Refusal of pre-arrest bail decides only that custodial process should take its ordinary course. The accused can surrender and seek regular bail, where the court will again weigh the material — and the trial itself remains governed by the presumption of innocence.
What options remain after anticipatory bail is rejected by the High Court?
The accused may surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail, or approach the Supreme Court by special leave against the rejection. A fresh anticipatory bail plea is ordinarily maintainable only on a material change in circumstances.