Anticipatory bail may be refused when custodial interrogation is necessary in a serious robbery investigation.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 139/2026, registered under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The FIR arose from an allegation that four armed men entered a senior citizen’s home at around 3:30 a.m., assaulted and restrained the complainant and his wife, and robbed them of jewellery, cash and other valuables

The petitioner’s earlier anticipatory-bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court

The State opposed relief, submitting that co-accused had disclosed the petitioner’s involvement, that a co-accused had identified him in CCTV footage, and that only 11 criminal antecedents were disclosed in the petitioner’s affidavit although the State alleged 25

The State further submitted that investigation was ongoing, substantial property remained unrecovered, and custodial interrogation was required

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in light of the gravity and circumstances of the alleged armed house robbery

Whether the need for custodial interrogation and the ongoing recovery of stolen property weighed against granting anticipatory bail

Section 482 BNSS provides for anticipatory bail.

The Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the principle that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a suspect protected by a pre-arrest bail order, particularly where information or concealed material is sought

It also relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, which holds that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy to be exercised cautiously; protection in serious cases may hamper investigation or risk interference with evidence

The FIR invoked Sections 309(4), 309(6), 311 and 3(5) BNS

The Court considered the alleged offence to be a serious, organised armed robbery against elderly victims in their home, allegedly carried out pursuant to a pre-arranged plan

It noted the State’s case that the petitioner’s involvement emerged from co-accused disclosures and CCTV identification, and that substantial stolen property remained unrecovered

Applying the principles in Anil Sharma and Srikant Upadhyay, the Court accepted the State’s submission that custodial interrogation was required to investigate the alleged conspiracy, the movements and roles of the accused, and the concealment or disposal of the remaining property

In these circumstances, it found anticipatory bail inappropriate

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the parties or be treated as an opinion on the merits