Anticipatory bail may be refused where prima facie evidence links the applicant to murder.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 201 of 2026, registered at Police Station Bichhvan, District Mainpuri, under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The alleged incident occurred on 26 July 2026 and the FIR was lodged on 31 July 2026. The applicant claimed false implication, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and that the police had initially treated the matter as a roadside accident.

The State and informant opposed the application, relying on the deceased’s call to his wife before his death, a witness’s statement that the deceased was last seen with the applicant and co-accused, and the investigation’s collected material.

The post-mortem report recorded six injuries and death from haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem injuries.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, having regard to the nature of the accusation and the material collected during the investigation.

Whether the applicant’s submissions—including the alleged FIR delay and his claim of false implication—outweighed the prosecution material at the anticipatory-bail stage.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for anticipatory bail, an extraordinary discretionary remedy that is not to be granted routinely. In deciding whether to grant it, the court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s alleged role, the material available, and the potential effect of protection on the investigation; arrest may serve investigative purposes.

The court relied on *Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar*, (2024) 12 SCC 382, for the caution required in exercising the power, particularly in serious cases, and on *Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil*, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, for the potential investigative purposes of arrest and the need to balance personal liberty with investigation. It also noted that the considerations for anticipatory bail differ from those for regular bail and cited *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab*, (1980) 2 SCC 565, regarding the extraordinary nature of the power.

The Court treated the case as a serious accusation supported, at the prima facie stage, by the deceased’s statement to his wife that he was with the applicant and co-accused, a witness’s account that the deceased was last seen with them, and the post-mortem findings of multiple ante-mortem injuries.

On that material, the Court found the applicant prima facie involved and concluded that the circumstances did not justify the exceptional protection of anticipatory bail. The Court did not accept the applicant’s arguments concerning delay and false implication as sufficient to alter that conclusion.

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.