Anticipatory bail may be refused where protection would frustrate custodial interrogation and further investigation.

The petitioner, a former Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Cuttack at Choudwar, sought pre-arrest bail in G.R. Case No. 73 of 2026 arising from Choudwar P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026, involving alleged offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 337 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that, after the escape of two under-trial prisoners, the petitioner retrospectively altered and fabricated entries in the Superintendent’s Minute Book dated 2 October 2025, including allegedly forging the informant’s signature, to shift responsibility and obstruct the investigation and departmental proceedings.

The petitioner contended that the Minute Book was untraceable and relied on communications suggesting that it had been taken by the informant during a DIG inquiry.

However, in a subsequent letter to the police, the petitioner stated that the Minute Book was merely “not traceable,” without mentioning that it had allegedly been taken by the informant.

The investigating officer stated that repeated notices and reminders requiring production of the Minute Book had not yielded the original document, which was material to the investigation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with the alleged forgery, falsification and manipulation of jail records under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 337 and 340 of the BNS.

Whether custodial interrogation was necessary, having regard to the petitioner’s allegedly inconsistent stands and the non-production of the original Minute Book.

The Court considered the principles governing pre-arrest bail and held that the factors relevant to post-arrest bail apply equally to anticipatory bail, relying on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 452.

It further relied on State represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the principle that custodial interrogation may be qualitatively more effective than questioning a suspect protected by an anticipatory-bail order, particularly where such protection may impede the discovery of concealed information or material.

The Court also applied the statutory provisions of Sections 336(2), 336(3), 336(4), 337 and 340 of the BNS, under which the petitioner was accused of offences concerning falsification, forgery and manipulation of official records.

The Court found that the petitioner had taken materially inconsistent positions regarding the Minute Book. On the one hand, the documents relied upon by him stated that the original had been taken by the informant during the DIG inquiry; on the other hand, his later communication to the police merely described it as “not traceable”.

The State also asserted that the factual report concerning the jail break did not refer even to the photocopy allegedly produced by the petitioner.

In view of the repeated demands made by the investigating officer for production of the original Minute Book and its continuing non-production, the Court considered the document vital to the investigation.

Applying Satender Kumar Antil and Anil Sharma, the Court held that granting pre-arrest protection would impair effective custodial interrogation and render further investigation “farcical,” particularly in light of the petitioner’s prevaricating stands.

The petitioner’s status as a Government servant and contention that he was unlikely to abscond did not outweigh the investigative need for custodial interrogation.

It nevertheless directed that, if the petitioner surrendered before the court concerned and applied for regular bail, that application should be considered on its own merits and without being influenced by the observations in the order.

The ABLAPL was accordingly disposed of and the interim order was vacated; the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the pre-arrest-bail application and did not constitute a finding on the petitioner’s ultimate complicity.