Anticipatory Bail Is Warranted Where Allegations Arise From Political Rivalry Rather Than Necessity For Custodial Interrogation

The Appellant, a national political party office bearer, held press conferences on April 5, 2026, alleging that the wife of the Chief Minister of Assam possessed three foreign passports and undisclosed overseas assets

The State registered an FIR on April 6, 2026, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), asserting the documents shown were forged

Following the rejection of a non-bailable warrant by a Magistrate and a stay on a transit bail order, the Appellant moved the Gauhati High Court for anticipatory bail

The High Court denied the application on April 24, 2026, on the grounds that the documents were prima facie forged and custodial interrogation was necessary

The Appellant approached the Supreme Court citing political vendetta and lack of flight risk

The Court primarily applied Section 438 of the CrPC/Section 482 of BNSS principles regarding anticipatory bail as interpreted in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which establishes that judicial discretion must balance individual liberty against the state's interest and consider if an accusation is motivated by a desire to humiliate the applicant

It further relied on Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, holding that custodial interrogation is generally unnecessary when an offence is based on documentary evidence and the accused is not a flight risk

Additionally, it distinguished Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra, where custodial interrogation was required to recover physical documents from the accused

The Court observed that the High Court erred by shifting the burden of proof to the Appellant to "prove beyond doubt" that his claims were true at the bail stage

The Court highlights that the underlying documents are already with the prosecution, negating the need for custodial recovery

Crucially, the Court scrutinized press statements made by the Chief Minister (the complainant's husband) threatening to "knock out" the Appellant and keep him in jail, which indicated that the criminal process might be "coloured by political rivalry"

The Court reasoned that since the Appellant is a resident of India with no flight risk and the issues involve election-time rhetoric, the apprehension of arrest appeared to stem from motives other than the mere ends of justice

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that in the event of arrest, the Appellant be released on anticipatory bail subject to reasonable conditions

The Appellant was ordered to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from tampering with evidence, and seek permission before leaving India

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail application and shall not influence the trial on merits