Anticipatory bail granted where key witnesses did not identify the applicant and no criminal antecedents existed.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, for offences under Sections 308(5), 296, 111, 351(3), 127(8), 115(2), 117(2), 61, 140(1) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that, between 16 and 19 February 2026, the applicant and co-accused formed an unlawful assembly, entered premises at Ghorai Talab, Raipur, attempted to kidnap and extort the complainants, assaulted them, used obscene abuse, and created terror while armed with weapons

The applicant contended that he had been implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement. He relied on the evidence of PW-1 Rakesh Sharma and PW-2 Jeevan Yadu, who allegedly did not identify the assailants before the trial court, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents and that eight of the nine accused had been granted bail

The State opposed the application, asserting that, during identification of a Sonata wristwatch seized from co-accused Shaheed, the complainant specifically named the applicant as the person who had snatched it. The State also submitted that the other accused had received regular bail, whereas the applicant had remained absconding, and that the witnesses’ depositions were matters for appreciation at trial

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in respect of the offences registered in Crime No. 42/2026?

Whether the nature of the allegations, the prosecution’s claim regarding identification of the applicant, the applicant’s alleged abscondence, and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses justified refusal of anticipatory bail?

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

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material relied upon by both parties, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the status of co-accused, and the need to secure cooperation with investigation and preserve the fairness of the trial

The Court considered the competing submissions, including the applicant’s reliance on the alleged failure of PW-1 and PW-2 to identify him and the State’s assertion that the complainant had identified him during the seized-property proceedings

It also noted the State’s objection that the applicant had remained absconding and that the other accused had been granted regular, rather than anticipatory, bail

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the submissions of the parties sufficient to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant under Section 482 BNSS

The Court preserved the prosecution’s ability to investigate and conduct the trial by imposing conditions requiring the applicant’s availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or the trial, and regular appearance before the trial court

It directed that, in the event of the applicant’s arrest in Crime No. 42/2026, he be released on anticipatory bail upon execution of a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

The applicant was required to cooperate with interrogation, refrain from influencing witnesses or prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial court on every date until conclusion of the proceedings

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance