Anticipatory bail granted where the accused had no antecedents and cooperated with the investigation.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 673/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rampur, District Korba, for alleged offences under Sections 303(2), 316(5), 317(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the illegal sale and purchase of timber and had purchased two pieces each of sal and bija wood, which were stored at his saw mill.

The applicant contended that he was absent when the timber was unloaded, subsequently sought supporting documents from the supplier, made an online payment based on prior dealings, and, upon being contacted by the Forest Department, disclosed the timber’s location and permitted its seizure.

He also asserted that he had no criminal antecedents and had not attempted to conceal or destroy evidence.

The State opposed anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations concerned the illegal trade in prohibited timber and involved a serious offence.

Whether the applicant, who apprehended arrest in connection with the alleged illegal purchase and possession of timber, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether, considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and his cooperation with the authorities, anticipatory bail ought to be granted.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the allegations under Sections 303(2), 316(5), 317(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The governing principle was that anticipatory bail may be granted where, upon consideration of the nature of the accusation, the surrounding circumstances, the applicant’s antecedents, and the likelihood of cooperation with the investigation, custodial arrest is not shown to be necessary.

The Court also imposed conditions intended to prevent witness influence, obstruction of a fair trial, non-appearance, and repetition of similar offences.

The Court considered the nature of the timber-related allegations and the State’s objection regarding their seriousness.

However, it also took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and, according to his submissions, had disclosed the existence and location of the timber to the Forest Department and permitted the authorities to take it into custody, indicating an absence of an intention to conceal evidence or abscond.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to exercise its discretion in favour of anticipatory bail.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Hukumchand Sharma be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial court; and involvement in a similar offence.

The applicant and surety were also required to submit Aadhaar copies and a full-size coloured postcard photograph bearing the printed Aadhaar number, subject to verification by the trial court.