Anticipatory bail granted where alleged threats lacked call records or prior complaint corroboration.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 262/2026 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja, for alleged offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 25 December 2025 at approximately 8:00 p.m., the applicant called the deceased, Dinesh Gupta, and threatened him. On 26 December 2025 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the deceased’s family found him hanging and deceased.

The applicant contended that he and his father had objected to a loan allegedly taken in the father’s name during periods when the father was in custody, and that the dispute did not constitute the alleged offence.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the statement of the deceased’s son concerning the alleged phone call. However, the State conceded that the deceased’s phone had not been seized, no call-detail records were available, and there was no prior complaint by the deceased regarding the alleged threats or monetary demand.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to allegations under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether the material in the case diary, particularly the alleged phone call and threat, justified denying the applicant protection from arrest despite the absence of call records, seizure of the deceased’s phone, or any prior complaint regarding the alleged threat.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged offences were under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning abetment of suicide, read with Section 3(5), which attributes criminal liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court considered the established anticipatory-bail principles requiring assessment of the nature of the accusation, the supporting material, and the circumstances of the case, while refraining from expressing any final opinion on the merits.

The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested substantially on the alleged phone call and threat immediately preceding the deceased’s suicide.

However, the State was unable to identify corroborative investigative material: the deceased’s phone had not been seized, call-detail records had not been collected, and there was no complaint by the deceased concerning the alleged threat or demand for money.

Considering these evidentiary deficiencies, the nature of the allegations, and the rival submissions, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail.

The Court expressly clarified that its assessment was limited to the bail application and did not constitute a determination on the merits.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Bharat Yadav be released on bail upon execution of a personal bond and one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat, or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; interference with a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial court; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and involvement in any similar offence in future.