An accused evading investigation may be denied anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation is necessary.

A parcel searched at a DHL warehouse in Delhi contained 250 grams of opium concealed in shoes, leading to registration of FIR No. 89/2026 under Sections 18/23 of the NDPS Act.

A co-accused allegedly named the petitioner as the source of the contraband.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, contending that the allegation rested on a co-accused’s disclosure and that no recovery or money trail linked him to the offence.

The State opposed the application, citing the petitioner’s prior NDPS conviction, his failure to join the investigation despite Section 67 notices, pending non-bailable warrants and proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender, and the need for custodial interrogation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the petitioner’s non-appearance, pending warrants and proclaimed-offender proceedings, prior NDPS conviction, and the asserted need for custodial interrogation weighed against granting anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, which explains that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy, not a rule; it must be exercised cautiously, particularly where protection may hamper investigation or enable interference with evidence.

The precedent further states that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued, or who continuously evades court orders, is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, though relief may remain available in extreme and exceptional cases.

The Court considered that the petitioner had not joined the investigation despite notices, non-bailable warrants had issued, and proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender were pending.

It also noted his prior conviction under the NDPS Act and the State’s submission that custodial interrogation was required to investigate the alleged conspiracy and trace the contraband’s forward and backward linkages.

The Court rejected parity with co-accused who had been arrested, interrogated, and later released on regular bail, finding their circumstances materially different.

Applying the cautious approach to anticipatory bail described in Srikant Upadhyay, the Court found no basis to grant pre-arrest protection.

The petition and pending application were dismissed.