Anticipatory bail granted where the applicant was implicated solely through a co-accused’s memorandum and had no criminal antecedents.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 609/2026 registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, for offences under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that two persons riding a scooter stopped complainant Rajeev Kaushik, abused and assaulted him while displaying a sharp-edged knife, and robbed his iPhone. The FIR was initially registered against two unknown persons on 2 September 2026.

During investigation, co-accused Rajkumar Dhruv was arrested and allegedly disclosed in his memorandum statement that he had committed the offence along with the applicant, referred to as “Shivam”.

The applicant denied involvement and contended that he had been implicated solely on the basis of the co-accused’s memorandum statement. He was approximately 18 years old, a Class 10 student, had examinations commencing on 26 October 2026, and had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application but acknowledged that the applicant had no other registered criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest for offences under Section 309(6) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the applicant’s age, student status, absence of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the material against him justified granting protection from arrest?

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 to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged substantive offences were Section 309(6) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

In exercising its discretion, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s asserted implication through the memorandum statement of a co-accused, his age and educational status, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The protection was made subject to the statutory and judicially recognised conditions requiring cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, conduct conducive to a fair trial, and appearance before the trial court.

The Court noted that the initial case was registered against two unknown persons and that the applicant’s alleged involvement emerged during investigation through the memorandum statement of the arrested co-accused.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court took into account the applicant’s young age, his status as a Class 10 student supported by educational documents, the impending examinations, and the absence of any criminal antecedents.

Although the State opposed the application on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, it did not dispute the absence of prior criminal antecedents.

Balancing the allegations and the need for investigation against the applicant’s personal circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail subject to safeguards ensuring his availability and preventing interference with the investigation or trial.

It directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 609/2026, the applicant 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 appear for interrogation when called, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts, avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and appear before the trial court on every date fixed until disposal of the case.