Anticipatory bail granted where applicant is neither named in FIR nor implicated by investigation materials.

The petitioner, Vijayraj Singh Thakur, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1041/2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(c), 66(D) and 72(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR was lodged by Nazmul Ansari, who alleged that Mr. Jewel Ahmed had obtained and used his documents, biometric information, fingerprints and iris scans in connection with enrolment in a Skill India-related programme.

The informant stated that he had initially been told that the biometric information was required for registration and Aadhaar/KYC verification, but later became apprehensive about its storage and possible misuse.

The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR and had no involvement in the alleged offence.

The Investigating Officer’s bail objection did not refer to the petitioner, and the case diary also contained no material connecting him with the case.

Whether the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR and against whom no material was found in the bail objection or case diary, was entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

If granted, what conditions should govern the petitioner’s release and cooperation with the investigation.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant pre-arrest bail where a person apprehends arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66(c), 66(D) and 72(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In exercising its discretion, the Court assessed the petitioner’s alleged connection with the offences and the investigation material placed before it.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not an accused named in the FIR and that the prosecution’s bail objection did not mention him.

Despite the Additional Public Prosecutor’s efforts, no material implicating the petitioner was found in the voluminous case diary.

In the absence of prima facie material linking him to the alleged misuse of biometric information or the other offences under investigation, the Court concluded that protection from arrest was justified under Section 482 of the BNSS.

At the same time, the Court preserved the investigative process by requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation.

The Court directed that, in the event of the petitioner’s arrest in Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, he be released on pre-arrest bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

The petitioner was further directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of the order and cooperate with the investigation.