Anticipatory bail is warranted where investigation is complete, accused cooperated, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The applicants—Arif, Suhail and Bahdood Khan alias Nadeem—sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 519 of 2025, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, registered under Sections 87, 70(1), 351(2) and 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 23 September 2025 the victim was taken away on the pretext that her father had met with an accident, given a toxic substance, taken to a hotel, sexually assaulted by the accused persons, detained at Ghaziabad for more than a month, compelled to sign blank papers, and subjected to the making of an obscene video. She was allegedly released at Behat on 23 October 2025, after which the FIR was lodged on 1 November 2025.

The applicants contended that the victim, aged 19 years, had voluntarily left her home with co-accused Navajis, with whom she was in a relationship. They claimed that the victim and Navajis married according to Muslim rites on 4 October 2025 and subsequently registered the marriage on 14 October 2025.

In an earlier writ petition, the Division Bench had declined to quash the FIR but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until submission of the charge-sheet, observing that investigation was necessary to clarify the disputed facts.

The investigation was subsequently completed, the applicants allegedly cooperated with it, and the trial court took cognizance on 22 May 2026.

Whether, in the circumstances of a completed investigation, the applicants required custodial interrogation so as to disentitle them from anticipatory bail?

Whether the applicants were entitled to protection from arrest under Section 482 BNSS notwithstanding the serious allegations under Sections 87, 70(1), 351(2) and 123 BNS?

Whether the applicants, who had not been arrested during investigation and had allegedly cooperated with the investigation, should be granted anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, in light of the allegations under Sections 87, 70(1), 351(2) and 123 BNS.

The Court relied on the principle that where investigation is complete, the accused has cooperated, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, continued protection from arrest may be justified.

The Court relied on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, which held that when an accused has not been arrested during investigation and custody is not required, the filing of the charge-sheet alone should not ordinarily result in arrest; the accused should generally be summoned and considered for bail.

The Court also considered the earlier protection granted under Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 453, and the Division Bench’s order permitting investigation while protecting the petitioners from arrest.

The Court further applied the settled principle that the grant of anticipatory bail must be determined on the nature of accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the need for custodial interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and the surrounding circumstances, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Court noted that the prosecution allegations were serious, but the material on record disclosed circumstances requiring consideration at the bail stage: the FIR was lodged after a substantial delay; the victim had travelled to Allahabad; a marriage-registration certificate existed and was not alleged to be forged; and the earlier Division Bench had already found that the factual controversy required investigation rather than immediate arrest.

By the time of the bail application, the investigation had been completed, the applicants had allegedly cooperated, no allegation of non-cooperation had been made, and cognizance had been taken.

Applying Aman Preet Singh, the Court held that the applicants’ arrest merely because the charge-sheet had been filed was unwarranted, particularly when custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Without adjudicating the disputed allegations or the validity of the competing versions, the Court found the case suitable for anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial.

In the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 519 of 2025, Arif, Suhail and Bahdood Khan alias Nadeem were directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

They were required to cooperate during trial and appear before the court as directed, refrain from influencing or intimidating witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The prosecution or informant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach or misuse of the conditions.