Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, unwarranted where serious allegations require custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 109(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant asserted false implication, relying on a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, the allegedly simple nature of the injuries, and his undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the application, stating that the applicant was the sole accused and that the injured had sustained a firearm injury and a fracture of the upper part of the left ulna; it also alleged that the applicant had obtained interim protection by suppressing material facts.

The investigation was at a preliminary stage.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, injury evidence, and stage of investigation.

Whether the applicant’s grounds—including alleged delay in the FIR and the asserted simplicity of the injuries—warranted pre-arrest protection.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confers an extraordinary discretion to grant anticipatory bail, which is not a matter of rule and must be exercised cautiously, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s role, the investigation, and risks such as interference with evidence or evasion of justice.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, cautions that pre-arrest protection in serious cases may hamper investigation and that the power is to be exercised judiciously.

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, states that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only where the circumstances justify that exceptional remedy.

The Court also referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, on balancing personal liberty against the investigating agency’s need to interrogate and investigate, and to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, on considering the offence’s gravity, the applicant’s role, and the risk of influencing the investigation or fleeing justice.

The Court treated the applicant as the sole accused and noted that the X-ray report supported the allegation of a firearm injury and showed a fracture of the upper left ulna.

It considered the accusations serious and the investigation preliminary, and found custodial interrogation necessary to uncover the truth.

The applicant had not demonstrated that the case was false, and the material on record provided a reasonable basis for the accusations.

In applying the stricter approach to anticipatory bail, the Court held that the grounds advanced by the applicant did not justify exceptional pre-arrest protection.

The interim order dated 6 November 2025 was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned by the fastest mode.