Anticipatory bail granted where allegations arise from prior litigation and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.

The applicant filed a first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apprehending arrest for Crime No. 162/2026 registered at Police Station Tikrapara

The complainant alleged that on February 22, 2026, the applicant forcibly entered her residence, assaulted her, and threatened to kill her unless she withdrew a pending trial against him

The applicant countered that the case was a false implication arising from a personal dispute and previous litigation (Crime No. 499/2024), supported by WhatsApp messages indicating the complainant sought to fulfill financial demands through threats of litigation

The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the allegations of house trespass and criminal intimidation were serious and required custodial interrogation

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the history of litigation between the parties

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court and Court of Session the discretionary power to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest for non-bailable offences

The underlying charges were governed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 296 (obscene acts), 333 (house-trespass), 324(4) (mischief), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation)

The Court analyzed the facts by noting that the present dispute appeared to stem from prior litigation and a personal conflict between the applicant and the complainant

It observed that the allegations leveled against the applicant had not yet been substantiated by independent or reliable evidence during the investigation

Critically, the Court found that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary under the circumstances

While the state argued the investigation was at a "nascent stage", the Court determined that the applicant's lack of relevant criminal antecedents—aside from a case involving the same complainant where bail was granted upon compromise—favored the exercise of judicial discretion in his favor

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety

The relief was made subject to several conditions: (a) no inducement or threat to persons acquainted with the facts; (b) no prejudice to the trial; (c) mandatory appearance before the trial court; (d) verification of Aadhaar credentials; and (e) a prohibition against involving himself in similar future offences