Anticipatory bail granted where naming relies solely on co-accused memorandum without recovery of incriminating material.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Police Station Marwahi for alleged illegal cattle transport and cruelty

On February 9, 2026, police acted on a tip regarding individuals driving cattle through the Salhekota forest for slaughter without documentation

While four suspects were apprehended at the scene, two others—including the applicant—allegedly fled

The applicant’s name was subsequently disclosed in the memorandum statements of the apprehended co-accused

The applicant argued he was a daily wage worker falsely implicated solely based on co-accused statements and was neither caught at the spot nor found in possession of any incriminating material

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his implication rests on co-accused statements and he possesses no criminal antecedents

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the statutory framework for directions granting bail to persons apprehending arrest

The underlying offences were registered under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the C.G. Agriculture Cattle Prevention Act, 2004; Section 11 of the Animal Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960; and Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court also relied on the established principle that the absence of criminal antecedents and the anticipated duration of the trial are critical factors in exercising judicial discretion for bail

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the quality of the evidence.

It noted that the applicant was not caught in flagrante delicto and that no cattle or incriminating evidence were seized from his possession

The prosecution’s case against the applicant relied heavily on the statements of co-accused, which the applicant challenged as insufficient for detention

The Court observed that the State counsel admitted the applicant had no prior criminal record

Considering the applicant's status as a permanent resident and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court determined that the applicant was not a flight risk and that the interest of justice favored his release on bail during the pendency of the proceedings

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

The grant was made subject to five specific conditions: (a) non-inducement or threat to witnesses; (b) non-prejudicial conduct toward the trial; (c) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; (d) submission and verification of Aadhaar details and photographs; and (e) a prohibition against involvement in similar future offences