Anticipatory bail denied amid gang-rape allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

The complainant alleged that accused No. 1, with whom she had been in a relationship, took her to a mine near Kesarala Tanda with accused Nos. 2–5, where she was assaulted.

She alleged that accused Nos. 1–3 sexually assaulted her and that she was confined for three days before being left near her home.

The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 5 and 3, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 117/2026, registered for offences including gang rape under Section 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed bail, relying on the complainant’s statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183(5) BNSS, the wound certificate, and the need for further investigation and custodial interrogation.

1. Whether the petitioners, accused Nos. 5 and 3, had established grounds for anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and material collected during the investigation.

2. Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences and the stated need for custodial interrogation justified refusing anticipatory bail at this stage.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for a direction for bail in anticipation of arrest; the petitions also referred to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 69, 70(1), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, particularly Section 70(1), which the Court identified as carrying a minimum sentence of twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment and a potential sentence of imprisonment for life.

The Court assessed the bail applications against the alleged seriousness of the offences, the investigation’s stage, the asserted need for custodial interrogation, and the material then available, including the complainant’s Magistrate-recorded statement and wound certificate.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the complainant’s statement before the Magistrate implicated accused Nos. 2 and 3 in sexual assault and placed accused No. 5 at the scene, where she alleged that a group of persons assaulted her.

It declined to separate the petitioners’ alleged roles from those of the other accused at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The Court also relied on the wound certificate as supporting the allegation that the complainant had sustained injuries, and accepted the State’s submission that the investigation remained at an early stage and required custodial interrogation.

In light of the gravity of the allegations, including gang rape, the Court held that the petitioners had not shown sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory bail was refused to accused No. 5, Ajit @ Ajaya, and accused No. 3, Suresh @ Suresh Kaka, in Crime No. 117/2026.