Anticipatory bail may be refused where serious allegations warrant custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 323 of 2026, registered at Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, under Sections 281, 125(A), 125(B), 105 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was on his tractor and allowed co-accused Virendra Kumar, who had no driving licence, to drive it; the tractor struck the informant’s uncle and caused injury.

The applicant claimed innocence, denied knowing that the co-accused lacked a licence, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, the material collected, and the stage of the investigation.

Whether the principles governing anticipatory bail, including its exceptional nature and the need to consider the seriousness of the accusation and the investigation, warranted pre-arrest protection.

Section 482 BNSS empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail, but the power is extraordinary and must be exercised cautiously, not as a matter of course; the court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s role, the investigation, and risks such as interference with evidence or flight from justice (Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, para. 30; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, para. 69; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, para. 92.4).

The court also relied on authorities explaining that arrest may serve investigative purposes and that anticipatory bail may impede investigation, while requiring careful assessment of the accusation and the applicant’s role (Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565).

The court found that the applicant was on the tractor allegedly driven by an unlicensed co-accused and that, according to the prosecution, he had allowed the co-accused to drive it. The FIR and witness statements disclosed a prima facie case, and the allegations were serious.

Given that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, the court considered custodial interrogation necessary to ascertain the truth; it also found that the applicant had not shown that the case was false or that no prima facie case existed.

Applying the distinction between regular bail and anticipatory bail, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify this exceptional pre-arrest remedy.

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the court concerned by the fastest mode.