Anticipatory bail is not a rule and may be denied to ensure effective custodial interrogation in firearm cases.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 153 of 2026, registered under Sections 109 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on March 19, 2026, the applicant and three unidentified associates fired upon the informant’s son due to an earlier dispute on February 22, 2026, causing pellet injuries that required surgery.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on March 22, 2026.

The applicant contended that the FIR was delayed, the injuries were superficial and non-vital, and that the ocular evidence conflicted with medical findings.

The State argued that the applicant was the main assailant and custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the weapon.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given the nature of the allegations and the requirement for custodial interrogation.

2. Whether a three-day delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the injuries (alleged to be non-vital) constitute sufficient grounds to grant pre-arrest bail.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs anticipatory bail (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.).

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024), establishing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in "eminently fit cases".

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) regarding the necessity of arrest for effective investigation.

Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), which requires the Court to balance individual freedom against the gravity of the offence and the role of the accused.

The Court observed that the applicant was the primary accused named in the FIR, with a specific overt act of firing a weapon attributed to him.

The Court rejected the applicant's argument regarding medical inconsistency, noting that pellets were surgically removed from the victim, confirming firearm injuries.

The Court reasoned that since the investigation was at a "preliminary stage," custodial interrogation was "imperative" and "necessary to unearth the truth" and recover the weapon.

Regarding the procedural delay of three days, the Court held that such a delay does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when the allegations are grave and the role is specific.

The Court emphasized that granting protection in serious cases could lead to a miscarriage of justice or hamper evidence collection.

The Court answered that the gravity of the offense, the specific role of the applicant as the main shooter, and the ongoing need for recovery of the weapon outweighed the applicant's plea for liberty.

The interim order, if any, was vacated.