Anticipatory bail may continue through trial where investigation is complete and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The applicant, Navajis, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 519 of 2025, Police Station Behat, District Saharanpur, registered under Sections 70(1), 123, 351(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that on 23 September 2025 the applicant induced the 19-year-old victim to accompany him by falsely stating that her father had met with an accident; she was allegedly taken to a hotel, administered a toxic substance, raped by the applicant and co-accused, detained at Ghaziabad for over a month, compelled to sign blank papers, and subjected to the recording of an obscene video. The FIR was lodged on 1 November 2025, after the victim returned to her family.

The applicant asserted that he and the victim were in a consensual relationship, that she had voluntarily left her home, and that they married according to Muslim customs on 4 October 2025. Their marriage was subsequently registered on 14 October 2025.

In an earlier writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, the Division Bench declined to quash the proceedings but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until filing of the charge-sheet, observing that investigation was necessary to clarify the disputed circumstances.

The investigation was subsequently completed, the victim’s statements were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and cognizance was taken on 22 May 2026. The applicant claimed that he had cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

1. Whether, in view of the completion of investigation, the applicant’s cooperation, the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation, and the prior protection from arrest, he was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS?

2. Whether the disputed allegations, the delayed FIR, the registered marriage, and the materials relating to the victim’s movements constituted sufficient grounds for extending protection from arrest without expressing a final opinion on the merits?

3. Whether the applicant should receive similar protection in view of the anticipatory bail granted to the co-accused?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the settled principles applicable to anticipatory bail, including the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s role, cooperation with the investigation, the possibility and necessity of custodial interrogation, and the surrounding facts and circumstances.

The Court relied on Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as reflected in the earlier writ order, for protecting personal liberty during investigation where the factual circumstances were uncertain and the accused’s implication might ultimately be found false.

It also relied on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, which holds that where an accused has not been arrested during investigation and custody is not required, the filing of a charge-sheet does not, by itself, justify arrest; ordinarily, the court should issue summons rather than warrants unless the accused is absconding or unwilling to appear.

The Court noted that the prosecution alleged illegal confinement, but the record disclosed no prompt missing-person report or FIR despite the victim’s alleged disappearance, and the FIR was lodged only after her return to her family.

The Court also considered the undisputed existence of the marriage-registration certificate dated 14 October 2025; the prosecution had not alleged that the certificate was forged, and the victim’s statement acknowledged that she had visited an office where the marriage documentation was prepared and her photographs were taken.

These circumstances, along with the victim’s travel to Prayagraj, the earlier order staying the applicant’s arrest, completion of investigation, and absence of any allegation that the applicant failed to cooperate, reduced the justification for custodial interrogation.

Applying Aman Preet Singh, the Court held that the applicant’s non-arrest during investigation and continued availability were material considerations against directing his custody merely because cognizance had been taken.

The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the allegations on merits and treated the grant of bail to the co-accused as an additional relevant circumstance.

The application was allowed, and in the event of arrest in Case Crime No. 519 of 2025, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

He was required to cooperate with the trial and appear before the court as and when required, refrain from influencing or threatening witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The prosecution or informant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach or misuse of the conditions.