Anticipatory bail is grantable where delayed implication and clean criminal records negate the necessity for custodial interrogation.

The applicant filed a first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with Crime No. 230/2025.

The complainant, Vinay Gurjar, alleged that on May 21, 2025, co-accused Nitin and Aditya, along with two unnamed associates, forcibly dragged him from his house and manhandled him due to political discord.

While the FIR was registered for various offences including attempt to commit hurt and criminal intimidation, the applicant was not named in the initial FIR; his name surfaced nine months later.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and that the complainant party had actually assaulted him.

Medical reports indicated no serious injuries, and the complainant declined an X-ray examination.

Co-accused Nitin and Aditya had already been granted regular and anticipatory bail, respectively.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the delay in his naming and the political nature of the dispute.

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation, considering the applicant’s clean criminal record and the status of the co-accused.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), which provides for the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused persons in the same crime had been granted bail.

The court emphasized the criteria for bail including the lack of criminal antecedents, the socio-economic status of the accused, the unlikelihood of fleeing from justice, and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation for the purpose of investigation.

The court observed that the incident appeared to be a manhandling incident arising from political rivalry between two groups rather than a premeditated grave crime.

It noted that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the allegations of a serious assault, as no major injuries were revealed and the complainant refused further diagnostic testing.

The court found the nine-month delay in naming the applicant significant in assessing the veracity of the prosecution's case.

Applying the principle of parity, the court noted that since the primary accused (Nitin and Aditya) were already on bail, there was no justification to deny the same to the applicant.

The court determined that the 27-year-old applicant, who has a clean record and stable employment, posed no flight risk or threat to the investigation, making jail incarceration unnecessary and potentially harmful to his social reputation.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount subject to conditions: the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, must not commit similar offences, and must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, provided the bail conditions are not breached.