Anticipatory Bail Inadmissible for Absconding Accused in Serious Offenses Involving Forgery of Government Records

The applicant, a government servant (weapon clerk), filed a successive application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The ATS Police Station, Ahmedabad, registered an FIR involving the issuance of thousands of forged arms licenses through the misuse of the Government of India portal (NDAL-ALIS) between 2019 and 2022

Investigation revealed that the applicant, during his tenure as weapon clerk, allegedly edited license data using Unique Identification Numbers (UINs) and transferred them to Gujarat for pecuniary gain

Despite notices issued under Section 35 of the BNSS, the applicant failed to join the investigation and was subsequently cited as an absconder in Column No. 2 of the charge-sheet

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail despite being cited as an absconder in the charge-sheet?

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in a matter involving a white-collar/socio-economic offense affecting societal interest?

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The principle from State of Haryana v. Dharamraj and Lavesh v. (NCT of Delhi), which establishes that anticipatory bail is generally not maintainable for an absconding accused

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation in economic offenses to unearth hidden information

Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., which clarifies that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not a standalone ground for granting bail if a prima facie case exists

The "rarest of rare" application of pre-arrest bail was emphasized per Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar

The court reasoned that the nature of the accusation—forging arms licenses—is a grave socio-economic offense that impacts the "economic fabric of society" and public safety

Although the applicant argued that the acts were committed by a computer operator and he was a mere government servant, the court found prima facie evidence of his active involvement in editing data for financial gain

The court highlighted the applicant’s conduct: he failed to cooperate with the investigating agency despite official notices and remained "on the run," which barred the exercise of discretionary relief

The court concluded that granting protection would "hamper the investigation" and frustrate the agency's ability to interrogate the accused effectively to find other involvements

It held that since the applicant was absconding and there were serious allegations regarding a large-scale arms license racket, he did not satisfy the criteria for extraordinary relief

The court ordered that Rule be discharged and clarified that these observations are tentative and should not influence the trial court during regular bail proceedings