Anticipatory bail denied where serious allegations require investigation and the applicant’s involvement cannot be ruled out.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 913/2026, registered at Police Station Kolgawan, District Satna, for alleged offences under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He claimed false implication arising from business disputes and a complaint he had made concerning alleged illegal mutation and sale of government land; he also relied on uncertainty in the CCTV footage, the apprehension of two other persons, and delay in lodging the FIR.

The State opposed bail on the basis that the allegations required investigation.

The objector alleged that the applicant was the main accused, had been declared an absconder, and was identifiable in CCTV footage; the objector also alleged that the applicant had concealed two recent criminal cases from his bail application.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and the asserted need for further investigation.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim of false implication and the other grounds raised in support of bail outweighed the circumstances relied on in opposition.

The application was made under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for anticipatory bail.

The Court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy, not a matter of routine, and must be considered cautiously in light of the circumstances of each case. Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Court noted that protection in serious cases may risk hampering investigation or affecting evidence.

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

The Court considered the allegations against the applicant and the State’s position that the matter required proper investigation.

It held that the applicant’s assertion of false implication due to prior enmity could be examined during that investigation, and that his involvement could not then be ruled out.

Applying the cautious approach to anticipatory bail described in the cited authorities, the Court found no basis to grant protection at that stage.

The Court dismissed the application.