Anticipatory bail denied considering the ongoing investigation and nature of allegations.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 294/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 305(e) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that six iron pipes and one iron gate valve, valued at approximately ₹90,000, installed at a Jal Jeevan Mission water-tank construction site, were stolen.

The FIR was initially registered against an unknown person. During investigation, co-accused Kishore Kumar allegedly disclosed the involvement of several persons and stated that the stolen articles had been sold to scrap dealers.

Two iron pipes and one iron valve, valued at approximately ₹50,000, were recovered from Ganpat Mirdha, and further investigation proceeded on the basis of statements concerning the remaining articles.

The applicant claimed that he was a scrap dealer who had purchased the articles from co-accused persons in the ordinary course of business, without knowledge that they were stolen or constituted government property.

He also relied on parity, stating that the co-accused had been granted bail by the trial court and that a compromise had been noted in those orders.

The State opposed the application.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing applications for anticipatory bail.

It considered the allegations under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Sections 305(e) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail is discretionary and must be determined with reference to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the stage and requirements of the investigation.

No precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the case diary, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the investigation was still in progress.

Although the applicant argued that he had merely purchased the articles as a scrap dealer, lacked knowledge of their stolen character, and was entitled to parity with the co-accused, the Court did not find these submissions sufficient at the anticipatory-bail stage.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the ongoing investigation and the circumstances of the case did not justify granting the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail.

The rejection was based principally on the ongoing investigation, the case-diary material, and the nature of the allegations, without any final determination on the merits.

The Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the concerned trial court.