Anticipatory bail may be denied where preliminary material supports accusations and custodial interrogation is necessary.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 618 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali City, Bijnor, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), concerning the murder of 82-year-old Anil Kumar Soti, who was found strangled at his home.

The applicant, a practising advocate and lawyer for co-accused Gaurav Soti, was not named in the FIR.

The prosecution relied on a statement by co-accused Nisha @ Anjum Parveen, the applicant’s clerk, as well as witness Naushad’s statement, alleged visits by the applicant to the place of occurrence, and call-detail records showing 28 communications between the applicant and Nisha, including a call the day before the murder.

The applicant argued that the case against him rested on an inadmissible co-accused confession and undertook to cooperate with the investigation; the State and informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, and alleged non-cooperation.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations and material collected during the investigation.

2. Whether the alleged co-accused confession, together with the other investigative material, provided a sufficient basis to refuse pre-arrest protection at this stage.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) confers an extraordinary pre-arrest bail power, to be exercised cautiously and on the facts of each case; relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s alleged role, the risk of interference with the investigation, and the possibility of flight or evidence tampering.

The Court relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, for the principles that anticipatory bail is not a matter of course and that protection may hamper investigation in appropriate cases.

It also referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, and Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, on balancing personal liberty against investigative needs and considering the offence, the alleged role, and risks to the investigation.

The Court stated that a confession made to police is inadmissible, but a portion leading to discovery of a new fact may be admissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

Although the applicant relied on the inadmissibility of Nisha’s alleged confession, the Court considered the investigation’s other material, including the applicant’s repeated visits to the place of occurrence, the communications with Nisha, and a witness statement implicating him.

The Court observed that the applicant had not explained his repeated visits despite claiming to practise in Delhi, and treated the investigation as preliminary and ongoing.

Given the gravity of the murder allegation, the material said to link the applicant to the alleged conspiracy, and the asserted need for custodial interrogation, the Court found no basis at that stage to conclude that the case against him was false or that a prima facie basis for the accusations was absent.

It therefore held that the considerations for regular bail did not require the grant of anticipatory bail.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit the order to the court concerned.