"You ate his ear, how do we replace it?" the Supreme Court asked a man on Wednesday, giving short shrift to his petition for anticipatory bail in an assault case.
Injecting a dose of dry judicial wit into the hearing, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made it clear that a litigant accused of chomping off a neighbour's ear during a street clash could hardly expect pre-arrest protection.
The matter reached the top court on an appeal challenging a February 2026 order of the Jharkhand High Court, which had refused anticipatory bail to one Rajiv Ranjan Kumar over a violent clash in Ranchi.
Kumar's counsel attempted to soften the blow by painting the incident as a routine neighbourhood feud that simply spiralled out of control on a festive night.
"It’s a long-simmering dispute between neighbours. It flared up on one night and cross-FIRs were registered. The opposite side managed to get anticipatory bail while I was denied the same. The way it started was, it was the night of Janmashtami, people were celebrating and there was some stone pelting..." the counsel submitted.
However, the Bench refused to be distracted by the festive backdrop, zeroing in instead on the the injury involved.
"Aapne pehle bandook nikali, phir uska kaan pakad liya, aur pura kaan khaa gaye aap. (You first took out a pistol, then held his ear and ate it) And you want anticipatory bail?" the Court remarked.
When the counsel protested that the allegation regarding the firearm was fabricated, the Bench offered a swift concession - only to press harder on the remaining damage.
"Chalo pistol jaane dijiye. Kaan ka kya karein? (Okay, let the pistol be, what do we do about the ear?) How do we replace it?" the Court quipped.
The counsel claimed his client was actually the primary victim of the tussle.
"I was pinned down on the ground. My hands and legs were restrained. My chest was bitten..." counsel submitted.
"So you admit that there was a brawl?" the Bench interjected.
"Yes. I am willing to cooperate with the investigation," the counsel replied.
The Bench was not persuaded by the defence of mutual combat and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner had been booked under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - including Section 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) - following an FIR registered at Argora police station in 2024.
The Jharkhand High Court had earlier rejected his anticipatory bail application, noting that police reports confirmed the victim suffered multiple grievous cut injuries to his head and face.