Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional cases.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station Deori, District Raisen, for offences under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 351(3), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 117(2), 118(1) and 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Applicant No. 2, Mohd. Farhan Anees, had been arrested, and the application was withdrawn on his behalf

The remaining applicants relied, among other matters, on interim protection granted to co-accused in an SLP and asserted that their case was similar; the objector referred to the dismissal of co-accused Faim Ullah’s anticipatory-bail application

The State opposed the application, and the High Court dismissed it

Whether the remaining applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and the circumstances urged in support of their application

Whether the application could continue on behalf of applicant No. 2 after his arrest and counsel’s request to withdraw it

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for a direction granting bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, which, while discussing Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, characterized anticipatory bail as an extraordinary power to be exercised in exceptional cases, including where a person appears falsely implicated or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is unlikely to misuse liberty.

The judgment also reproduced the statutory considerations concerning the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s antecedents, risk of flight, and whether the accusation was made to injure or humiliate the applicant.

The Court noted that the allegations against the applicants were serious.

Although the applicants relied on protection granted to co-accused and asserted similarity, and the objector pointed to the rejection of another co-accused’s application, the Court’s stated reasoning focused on the seriousness of the allegations and the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail.

It concluded that the circumstances did not warrant the exercise of the anticipatory-bail power.

It dismissed the anticipatory-bail application on behalf of the remaining applicants.