Anticipatory bail may be denied where deliberate evasion necessitates custodial interrogation and raises tampering concerns.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 0007/2026, registered at Police Station Jahangir Puri under Sections 75, 79 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant alleged that her marriage/engagement with the applicant took place on 22 June 2025 and that jewellery valued at approximately ₹2,00,000, ₹80,000 in cash and other articles were given to the applicant and his family. She further alleged that, after receiving a call from a woman claiming to be the applicant’s girlfriend, the applicant abused her, refused to marry her and failed to return the articles. An additional allegation concerned the applicant’s forcibly hugging the complainant without her consent.

Although the FIR was registered approximately six months after the alleged events, the investigation remained at a nascent stage and involved, inter alia, recovery of the allegedly retained articles.

The applicant failed to join the investigation despite two notices under Section 35(3) BNSS; consequently, non-bailable warrants were issued on 11 March 2026, and a raid at his residential address on 24 March 2026 was unsuccessful.

Mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre failed, though the applicant subsequently joined the investigation on a date different from that fixed by the Court.

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Whether the applicant’s failure to cooperate with the investigation, issuance of non-bailable warrants and apprehension of absconding, evidence tampering or witness influence justified denial of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

It considered the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly after examining relevant circumstances, including the specific role attributed to the applicant and the possibility of absconding. In this regard, the Court relied on State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510, which identifies these considerations as germane to an application for anticipatory bail.

The Court also treated the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and the necessity of custodial interrogation as material considerations.

The Court found that the allegations arose from an admitted relationship and proposed marriage, with allegations concerning misappropriation or non-return of jewellery, cash and other articles requiring investigation and possible recovery.

Although there was a delay of approximately six months in registration of the FIR, the delay did not outweigh the need for further investigation, particularly because the investigation was at an early stage.

The applicant’s failure to comply with two notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, issuance of non-bailable warrants and absence from his residence during the police raid demonstrated a lack of cooperation and raised concerns regarding his availability for investigation.

The Court consequently held that custodial interrogation was required and that there was a possibility of the applicant misusing anticipatory bail, tampering with evidence, derailing the investigation or influencing witnesses.

It held that the applicant’s non-cooperation, the issuance of non-bailable warrants, the nascent stage of investigation and the requirement of custodial interrogation justified denial of protection under Section 482 BNSS.

The Court clarified that any observations made for deciding the bail application would not affect the merits of the case or the subsequent trial.