Anticipatory bail may be refused where custodial interrogation is necessary in a serious offence.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 330 of 2026, registered at Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi, for alleged offences under Sections 60, 62, 63 and 72 of the Excise Act; Sections 63/64 of the Copyright Act; and Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 178, 179 and 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The applicant asserted innocence, contended that they had not been arrested at the spot and had been implicated on the basis of a brother’s confessional statement, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation

The State opposed the application, alleging involvement in making fake liquor and submitting that custodial interrogation was required

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, the material collected, and the asserted need for custodial interrogation.

2. Whether the circumstances justified exercise of the court’s extraordinary pre-arrest bail jurisdiction.

The Court treated anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS as an extraordinary remedy to be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and not as a matter of course. Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, it noted that protection in serious cases may hamper investigation and that the power calls for cautious, judicious discretion.

It relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement for the principles that arrest may serve investigative purposes and that pre-arrest bail should be granted only where exceptional circumstances justify it, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation and other relevant factors.

The Court also referred to Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil on balancing personal liberty against the investigating agency’s need to interrogate the accused, and to Sushila Agrawal v. State (NCT of Delhi) on considering the offence’s nature and gravity, the applicant’s role, and the risk of influencing the investigation or fleeing justice.

It further stated that the standards for regular bail and anticipatory bail differ and that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely.

The Court found that, although the applicant was not arrested at the scene, their name had been given by their real brother, and custodial interrogation was required to uncover the facts.

It also held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the case was false and that the preliminary investigation and material on record provided a reasonable basis for the accusations.

Applying the principles governing the exceptional pre-arrest remedy, the Court concluded that the circumstances did not warrant anticipatory protection.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the court concerned for onward transmission to the investigating officer for compliance.