Anticipatory bail is denied where serious allegations and preliminary investigation necessitate custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2026, Police Station Suriyawan, District Bhadohi, registered under Sections 61(2)(A), 191(2), 109, 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant claimed false implication, contending that although he was named in the FIR, the injured persons had not initially named him and that he was implicated merely because he was a classmate of the principal accused, Adarsh alias Kallu.

Two persons, Lal Bahadur and Ram Bahadur, had sustained grievous injuries, including fractures to the elbow and sixth rib.

It was acknowledged that Lal Bahadur did not initially name the applicant but subsequently identified him in his statement as one of the assailants.

The investigation was at a preliminary stage, and the Court considered custodial interrogation necessary.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the serious allegations, grievous injuries and the identification of the applicant by an injured witness?

Whether the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail could be granted where the prosecution alleged a prima facie case and asserted the necessity of custodial interrogation?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, and considered the offences alleged under Sections 61(2)(A), 191(2), 109, 333 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted cautiously and only in exceptional cases, unlike regular bail, for which “bail is the rule”.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Court held that anticipatory bail must be exercised with caution, particularly where protection may prejudice investigation, and that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has been issued ordinarily cannot invoke the extraordinary power.

Under P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, arrest may serve investigative purposes and anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly after considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s role and the possibility of interference with investigation.

The Court also relied on Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, for the principles that custodial interrogation may be necessary, the nature and gravity of the offence and the applicant’s role must be assessed, and anticipatory bail is discretionary and exceptional.

The Court treated the allegations as serious because two injured persons had suffered grievous fractures.

Although the applicant relied on the fact that Lal Bahadur had not named him initially, the Court noted that Lal Bahadur subsequently specifically identified him as one of the assailants.

Applying the exceptional and cautious standard governing anticipatory bail, the Court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the prosecution was false or motivated.

Since the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and custodial interrogation was considered necessary to ascertain the truth, the Court held that the material disclosed a reasonable prima facie basis for the accusations and that the case did not warrant interference through pre-arrest protection.

The Court further emphasized that the considerations applicable to regular bail cannot automatically justify anticipatory bail.

The application under Section 482 BNSS was accordingly dismissed.

Any interim order was vacated.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit the order to the concerned court, which was to forward it to the Investigating Officer for further action in accordance with law.