Anticipatory bail denied where cross-border arms procurement warrants custodial interrogation and the accused evaded arrest.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 264 dated 20.11.2025, registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act.

The FIR arose from a BSF operation in which two persons were apprehended and a pistol without slide, a magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from a field; a third person allegedly escaped.

During investigation, the petitioner was nominated on the basis of disclosure statements of the apprehended co-accused, who allegedly stated that the petitioner had procured the weapon and ammunition through a drone by communicating the delivery location through his mobile phone.

He had previously sought the same relief in CRM-M-5638-2026, which was dismissed on 11.02.2026.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in view of the alleged cross-border drone procurement of arms and ammunition and the material collected during investigation.

Whether the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair and effective investigation into the source, procurement, transmission and intended use of the recovered arms and ammunition.

Whether the alleged inadmissibility or limited evidentiary value of the co-accused disclosure statements, and the absence of recovery from the petitioner, could be conclusively determined at the stage of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., governing the discretionary grant of anticipatory bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Aircraft Act.

The Court held that, at the anticipatory-bail stage, it is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or conclusively determine the admissibility and ultimate probative value of investigative material; such matters are ordinarily to be tested at trial.

It further applied the principle that custodial interrogation may justify refusal of pre-arrest bail where it is relevant to a fair and effective investigation, particularly in cases involving serious allegations and an incomplete investigative chain.

The Court found that the prosecution material disclosed recovery of a pistol, magazine and live cartridges allegedly delivered through a drone from across the international border after the delivery location had purportedly been conveyed through the petitioner’s mobile phone.

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the cross-border nature of the alleged procurement, the Court held that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation remained relevant to tracing the source, procurement, transmission and intended utilisation of the arms.

The Court declined to conclusively decide the petitioner’s challenge to the co-accused disclosure statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam or to treat the absence of recovery from the petitioner as determinative, observing that those matters required assessment on the evidence led at trial.

The petitioner’s failure to surrender or make himself available to the Investigating Agency after dismissal of his earlier bail petition further disentitled him to discretionary protection.

No exceptional circumstance warranting anticipatory bail was therefore established.

It held that the gravity of the allegations, the alleged cross-border drone operation, the need for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner’s continued non-availability justified refusal of pre-arrest protection.

All pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications were disposed of as having become infructuous.