Anticipatory bail may be refused where a police officer is absconding and investigation remains incomplete.

The petitioner, a police head constable, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 133/2026, registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 318(2), 351(2), 352 and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that, after her husband died in 2023, the petitioner promised to marry her, had repeated sexual intercourse with her, and obtained approximately ₹20 lakh and gold ornaments; she further alleged that he later refused to marry her, assaulted her and threatened her.

The State and complainant opposed bail, citing the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged absconding after registration of the case, and the need for his presence during the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner relied on prior anticipatory-bail orders concerning Section 69 BNS.

1. Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for anticipatory bail in the circumstances of the case

2. Whether the ongoing investigation, the petitioner’s alleged absconding, and his position as a head constable warranted refusing pre-arrest bail

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail. In considering that relief, the Court assessed the prima facie nature of the allegations, the stage and requirements of the investigation, and the risk that the petitioner might abscond or fail to assist the police.

The Court also considered the alleged false promise of marriage in relation to Section 69 BNS, referring to the Kerala High Court’s order in Bail Application No. 5388 of 2025, which observed that such conduct may prima facie indicate an offence under Section 69, while leaving the matter for investigation.

The Court distinguished the coordinate Bench decisions cited by the petitioner on the facts, including his status as a police head constable at the complainant police station and his alleged absconding.

The Court considered the complainant’s allegations, including the alleged repeated sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and the alleged transfer of money and gold ornaments, alongside the photographs and documents concerning online bank transactions and video calls.

It found a prima facie case at that stage and noted that the investigation remained at an early stage and that the petitioner’s presence was required.

The Court further treated his alleged absconding and his position as a head constable at the complainant police station as relevant to the risk of evasion and the need to ensure his cooperation with the investigation.

It therefore found the cited coordinate Bench orders distinguishable and no special ground for anticipatory bail.

The criminal petition was dismissed.