Anticipatory Bail Granted Where Property Dispute Is Civil and Co-Accused With Identical Role Is on Bail

The applicant, Rukhsar, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 472/2025 involving alleged theft and house-breaking under Sections 305(a), 331(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complainant, the applicant’s step-mother, alleged that while she was at the hospital following her husband's death, the applicant and her brother (Firoj) broke into the house and stole cash (Rs. 6,50,000/-), jewellery, and documents.

CCTV footage allegedly showed the applicant exiting the premises with a plastic bag.

While Firoj was arrested and subsequently granted regular bail, the State opposed the applicant's plea, citing the need for custodial interrogation to recover the missing cash and jewellery.

The applicant maintained the dispute was civil/matrimonial in nature regarding her late father's estate.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite allegations of non-cooperation and the need for recovery of stolen property.

2. Whether the failure of an accused to make self-incriminating statements or disclose specific details can be deemed "non-cooperation" sufficient to deny bail.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court relied on the constitutional and legal principle that an accused cannot be compelled to make self-incriminatory statements, and failure to do so does not constitute "lack of cooperation" as established by the Supreme Court in Bijender v. State of Haryana, Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court also considered the principle of parity in bail, noting the co-accused had already been granted regular bail.

The Court reasoned that while the prosecution alleged non-cooperation based on the applicant’s failure to identify other persons in the CCTV footage or disclose the location of the cash, such demands for disclosure cannot override the protection against self-incrimination.

The Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had already joined the investigation since being granted interim protection in October 2025.

The Court noted that a similarly situated co-accused (Firoj) had already been granted bail and that the underlying conflict regarding the property was being litigated in a civil partition suit (CS (OS) 104/2026), where a status quo order had been passed.

The Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary as the material role of the applicant did not differ significantly from the bailed co-accused.

The holding established that custodial interrogation was not warranted given the civil nature of the overarching dispute, the lack of criminal history, and the principle of parity with the co-accused.

The applicant was ordered to report to the Investigating Officer as required and was prohibited from contacting the complainant or tampering with evidence.