Anticipatory bail may be denied where case-diary material specifically links the accused to serious offences.

The applicant, Aman Kewat, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 144/2026 registered at Police Station Darri, District Korba, for offences under Sections 331(4), 305, 111(2), 3(5) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that, during the intervening night of 13–14 April 2026, unknown persons unlawfully entered the premises of G4S Company at the BCPP Plant, Darri, and stole approximately 40 kg of copper cable and copper plates valued at about ₹30,000; the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons under Sections 305 and 331(4) BNS.

Upon examining the case diary, the Court noted that security personnel had supported the involvement of the accused persons and that co-accused Rajkumar Yadav had allegedly disclosed that he, along with the applicant and other accused persons, had gone to the plant to commit theft and assaulted security guards when intercepted.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged offences under the BNS, 2023?

Whether the material collected during investigation, including the statements of security personnel and the memorandum statement of a co-accused, justified denial of anticipatory bail?

Whether the rejection of anticipatory bail applications of co-accused persons affected the applicant’s claim for discretionary relief or parity?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence, subject to judicial consideration of the allegations, available material, seriousness of the offence, and the interests of investigation.

The governing principle applied was that anticipatory bail is discretionary and may be refused where the case diary discloses prima facie material connecting the applicant with a serious offence, particularly when custodial investigation or effective investigation may be required.

The Court also considered the relevance of the rejection of bail applications filed by similarly placed co-accused, while assessing whether the applicant was entitled to parity.

The Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on his non-mention in the FIR because the FIR had initially been lodged against unknown persons and the applicant’s alleged involvement emerged during investigation.

The case diary contained statements of security personnel supporting the involvement of the accused persons, as well as the memorandum statement of co-accused Rajkumar Yadav allegedly naming Aman Kewat as one of the persons who went to the plant to commit theft and participated in the incident in which security guards were assaulted.

In view of this material, the Court found that specific circumstances connected the applicant with the alleged theft and related offences.

The seriousness of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the earlier rejection of the anticipatory bail applications of co-accused Nadim Khan and Nafis Alam persuaded the Court not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the applicant’s favour at that stage.

It found that the investigation material, including the statements of security personnel and the alleged disclosure of co-accused Rajkumar Yadav, prima facie connected the applicant with the theft and assault alleged in Crime No. 144/2026.

The anticipatory bail application of Aman Kewat was accordingly rejected.