Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, warranting refusal where serious allegations and custodial interrogation arise.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0099 of 2026, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh, registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The alleged incident occurred on 4 May 2026 at 5:00 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged on 7 May 2026 at 5:30 p.m. The applicant contended that the delay was unexplained, that the case was a cross-case, and that an FIR had been lodged from his side on 5 May 2026. He further asserted that he had also sustained injuries, that the allegations against him were general and vague, and that he had no criminal history.

Three persons from the informant’s side allegedly sustained injuries. Although the injuries to two persons were simple, injured Suresh was found to have suffered a displaced fracture of the squamous part of the left temporal bone.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the applicant’s nomination in the FIR, the injury report, and witness statements indicating his participation in the occurrence.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite his nomination in the FIR and the existence of prima facie material against him?

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a cross-case, the applicant’s alleged injuries, and the absence of criminal history constituted exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest protection?

3. Whether the seriousness of the allegations, the temporal-bone fracture suffered by an injured person, and the preliminary stage of investigation justified refusal of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS, which governs anticipatory bail, and held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted cautiously and only in exceptional cases.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a rule and that interim or pre-arrest protection may prejudice investigation, particularly in serious cases.

Under P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the power must be exercised sparingly after considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of flight, and the effect of bail on investigation.

The Court also relied on Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, including the principles that arrest may facilitate effective investigation and discovery of material facts, and that anticipatory bail requires consideration of the applicant’s precise role and the possibility that the accusation is intended merely to cause humiliation.

Further, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, requires consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant’s role, the likelihood of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing justice.

The Court also noted the distinction between regular bail and anticipatory bail and referred to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, for the exceptional nature of the anticipatory-bail jurisdiction.

The Court found that the applicant was specifically nominated in the FIR and that three persons had sustained injuries, including a fracture of the left temporal bone suffered by Suresh.

The FIR, injury report, and witness statements collectively disclosed a prima facie case and indicated the applicant’s participation; therefore, the applicant could not establish that no offence was made out against him.

Although the applicant relied on the delay in the FIR, the cross-case, his own injuries, and his lack of criminal history, these factors did not demonstrate that the prosecution was manifestly false or that exceptional circumstances existed.

Given the seriousness of the allegations and the preliminary stage of investigation, the Court accepted the State’s submission that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the truth and held that anticipatory bail could impede the investigation.

The Court consequently distinguished the liberal considerations applicable to regular bail from the stricter standard governing anticipatory bail.

A prima facie case was made out on the basis of the FIR, injury report, and witness statements, and the seriousness of the injuries and the preliminary stage of investigation weighed against pre-arrest protection.

The anticipatory bail application was accordingly dismissed.