Anticipatory bail granted where implication rested on a co-accused’s memorandum without recovery or criminal antecedents.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 214/2026 registered at Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, for offences under Sections 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Virendra Poya demanded money from the complainant in connection with survey work for SECL’s proposed Madan Nagar Open Cast Coal Mining Project and that Rs. 50,00,000 was paid on 09.07.2026 following threats.

After Virendra Poya’s arrest, his alleged memorandum statement stated that the applicant had a share of Rs. 11,00,000, leading to the applicant’s implication.

The applicant contended that he was not named in the FIR, no incriminating article or money was recovered from him, he had no criminal antecedents, and the co-accused had already been granted bail.

The State opposed the application, alleging the applicant’s involvement in extorting money from an SECL employee.

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

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the evidentiary basis of the accusation, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and parity with the co-accused.

The alleged offences were under Sections 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered that the applicant’s name did not appear in the FIR and that his implication was based on the alleged memorandum statement of co-accused Virendra Poya.

It further noted the absence of any recovery of the alleged extorted amount or other incriminating article from the applicant and found that the prosecution had not demonstrated a specific necessity for custodial interrogation.

The Court also gave weight to the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that the principal co-accused had already been granted bail.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, these circumstances were held sufficient to justify the exercise of discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; appearance before the trial Court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and non-involvement in any offence of a similar nature.