Acquittal of co-accused and prolonged delay do not automatically entitle an applicant to anticipatory bail.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to Crime/FIR No. 146/2010 registered at Police Station Jawa, District Rewa, for offences under Sections 353, 186, 342 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 September 2010 at approximately 1:30 a.m., the applicant and two co-accused went to the police station seeking permission to meet a person in police custody.

After permission was refused, co-accused Tersu allegedly instructed Pramod to lock the main gate, which Pramod allegedly did, while threats were also extended to police personnel.

The applicant contended that no specific overt act was attributed to him; that the allegations concerning locking the gate and issuing threats were directed against the co-accused; that the investigation was complete; and that approximately sixteen years had elapsed since the alleged incident.

He further relied on the acquittal of the co-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal on 1 October 2024, following their conviction by the Trial Court on 20 October 2023.

The State opposed the application, maintaining that the applicant’s presence and participation had to be considered in the context of the entire occurrence and that the acquittal of the co-accused did not automatically entitle him to bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The Court also considered the allegations arising under Sections 353, 186, 342 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, concerning assault or criminal force to deter a public servant, obstruction of a public servant, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation, respectively.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be assessed on the basis of the allegations and material presently available; the absence of attribution of the principal physical act to an accused does not, by itself, establish complete exoneration where the prosecution case places that accused at the scene and alleges participation in the overall occurrence.

The Court further held that acquittal of co-accused does not automatically confer a right to bail upon an accused whose individual role has not been independently adjudicated.

The Court found that the prosecution case specifically placed the applicant at the police station with the co-accused during the alleged occurrence.

Although the acts of locking the gate and issuing threats were specifically attributed to Tersu and Pramod, the Court held that this did not, at the anticipatory-bail stage, conclusively establish that the applicant had no role in the incident.

The allegations were required to be assessed in their entirety, including the applicant’s alleged presence and the circumstances in which the accused persons acted together.

The Court also declined to treat the co-accused’s acquittal as determinative because the applicant was not a party to that appellate adjudication and his individual role required separate consideration.

Consequently, the passage of time, completion of investigation, absence of an alleged need for custodial interrogation, and the absence of a specific overt act were insufficient to warrant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail on the material before the Court.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the High Court rejected the applicant’s first bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.