Anticipatory bail denied where serious allegations and custodial interrogation needs remain at the preliminary investigation stage.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj, under Sections 87, 64, 115(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant denied the allegations and asserted that the victim was a consenting party; the State opposed bail, submitting that the victim was approximately 16 years old and had stated under Section 183 BNSS that the applicant raped her.

The Court noted that a Division Bench had dismissed the applicant’s writ petition on 4 June 2026 and allowed 15 days to obtain bail, but that order had not been complied with.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, the victim’s age and statement, and the stage of the investigation.

Whether the applicant’s failure to comply with the prior order allowing time to obtain bail weighed against granting anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the anticipatory-bail power under Section 482 BNSS as an extraordinary discretion, not a routine entitlement, and applied the principles that the court should assess the accusation’s nature and gravity, the applicant’s role, the investigation’s needs, and risks such as flight or interference with evidence.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, the Court observed that anticipatory bail ordinarily should not be invoked where a warrant or proclamation has issued, while preserving the possibility of relief in extreme, exceptional cases.

It also relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement for the proposition that pre-arrest bail should be granted sparingly and in exceptional cases.

Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil for the need to balance personal liberty against the investigating agency’s need to investigate and interrogate; and Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi) for the relevant discretionary factors.

The Court further distinguished the considerations governing regular bail from those governing anticipatory bail.

The Court found that the victim claimed to be about 16 years old and had alleged in her statement that the applicant raped her; it considered that her consent was therefore immaterial to the State’s opposition.

It also found a prima facie case, noted the preliminary stage of investigation and considered custodial interrogation necessary to ascertain the truth.

The applicant had not demonstrated that the case was false, and the Court considered his non-compliance with the earlier order granting 15 days to obtain bail.

Applying the principles governing the exceptional anticipatory-bail remedy, it concluded that the circumstances did not justify pre-arrest protection.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned.