A specific dying declaration and need for custodial interrogation justify denying anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2026, registered at Police Station Ganjdundwara, District Kasganj, under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

He argued that he was not named in the FIR, was implicated more than two months later on the basis of the deceased’s statement, and had no specific role; he also disputed whether the deceased had named him or another person.

The State and informant opposed the application, relying on a video in which they said the deceased specifically named the applicant and not the person suggested by the defence.

The Court considered the application on the record and the parties’ submissions.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the deceased’s statement naming him and the seriousness of the allegations.

2. Whether the applicant’s asserted lack of a specific role and alleged ambiguity in the deceased’s statement justified pre-arrest protection at the investigation’s preliminary stage.

The application was made under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), concerning anticipatory bail; the alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) BNS.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Court treated anticipatory bail as an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of rule, with attention to the accusation’s nature and gravity and the potential effect of protection on investigation.

It also relied on the principles quoted from Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, concerning the balance between personal liberty and the investigating agency’s need to interrogate an accused, and from Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, requiring consideration of the offence, the applicant’s role, and risks to the investigation.

The Court further referred to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, in support of the position that the power is not to be used routinely.

The Court found that the deceased had specifically named the applicant in the video statement and held that the dying declaration could not be doubted at the anticipatory-bail stage.

It considered the allegations serious, the investigation preliminary, and custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the truth; it also found no material at that stage showing that the case was false or that a prima facie case was absent.

In those circumstances, the applicant’s contentions that he was not named in the FIR and had no specific role did not warrant pre-arrest protection.

The Court emphasized that the standards for regular bail and anticipatory bail are distinct.

The anticipatory-bail application was dismissed.