Anticipatory bail denied in view of the minor victim’s age and serious allegations.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 406/2026, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had sexual relations with the victim on a false promise of marriage; the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS supported that allegation, and her school certificate indicated that she was about 15 years old at the relevant time.

The applicant denied the allegations, asserted that he had been falsely implicated and relied, among other things, on an affidavit from the victim’s father.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.

Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the allegations and the victim’s age.

Whether the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s attributed role and the stage of the investigation warranted refusing anticipatory bail.

Section 482 BNSS empowers a court to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, for the principle that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of routine and must be considered through cautious, case-specific discretion, particularly where protection could hamper investigation or risk interference with evidence.

It also relied on Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, (2025) 1 SCC 753, for the principle that the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised with great circumspection.

Applying those principles, the Court considered the victim’s stated age of about 15, her Section 183 BNSS statement alleging sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role attributed to the applicant and the stage of the investigation.

It concluded that these circumstances did not justify exercising its discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail; the applicant’s submissions, including his claim of innocence and the victim’s father’s affidavit, did not alter that assessment.

The application was dismissed.