Anticipatory bail may be denied where ongoing investigation must ascertain the accused’s role in fatal illegal activity.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 315/2026 registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat, for offences under Sections 105, 303(2), 95 and 317(5) of the BNSS, Section 4/21 of the Khan Evam Khanij Adhiniyam and Section 53/1 of the M.P. Gond Khanij Adhiniyam.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused Somu Shukla were involved in the illegal excavation and transportation of sand from a nallah behind Gayatri Mandir, Waraseoni. During the alleged activity, Himanshu fell from a tractor and died at the spot; the tractor was allegedly driven by Shiva Meshram.

The applicant contended that the tractor was registered in the name of his father, Satish Chandra Dubey, that he had no connection with the tractor or the alleged offences, and that his implication was based principally on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that the applicant’s role, control over the tractor and involvement in the illegal activity required further investigation and that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite the tractor being registered in his father’s name and the absence of a specific overt act attributed to him in the FIR or witness statements.

Whether, having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the death arising during the alleged illegal activity, the material collected during investigation and the need to ascertain the applicant’s precise role, anticipatory bail should be granted while investigation remained pending.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

At the anticipatory-bail stage, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or conclusively determine the applicant’s guilt or innocence; the existence or absence of a specific overt act in the FIR is not necessarily decisive when investigation is continuing.

Registration of a vehicle in another person’s name does not, by itself, establish that the applicant had no role in its use or control.

The Court may consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the material collected during investigation, the need for custodial interrogation, and whether granting protection may adversely affect a fair and effective investigation.

The prosecution’s reliance on the co-accused’s memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was treated as part of the material requiring investigation, without any final determination of its evidentiary value.

The Court held that the father’s name in the Registration Certificate did not conclusively exclude the applicant’s involvement, since the actual user, controller or person directing use of the tractor remained to be investigated.

Similarly, the lack of a detailed role in the FIR or witness statements could not, at the preliminary stage, establish false implication or justify anticipatory bail.

The allegations involved illegal extraction and transportation of sand and an ensuing death, making them sufficiently serious.

The applicant’s name had surfaced during investigation, and the investigating agency still had to determine the actual control and use of the tractor, the persons involved, the instructions under which the tractors were operated, and the applicant’s precise role.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to accept conclusively that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and found that anticipatory bail could adversely affect effective investigation.

The application under Section 482 of the BNSS was accordingly rejected.