Anticipatory bail requires exceptional circumstances and may be denied where custodial interrogation is necessary.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 786 of 2025, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, registered under Sections 111(1), 318(4), 115(2), 351(2) and 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, called the informant’s husband to her residence, took his nude photographs, assaulted him and extorted ₹1,60,000 from him in a “honey trap”.

The applicant claimed false implication, contending that the alleged incident dated 11 April 2025 was reported only on 9 October 2025 and that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to an earlier FIR filed by her on 24 September 2025 against the informant’s husband.

In the earlier FIR, Case Crime No. 735 of 2025, the police had submitted a final report after investigation.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the nude photographs available in the case diary, the statements of the informant and her husband, the allegation of extortion, and the applicant’s alleged role as the principal accused.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the serious allegations and material collected during the preliminary investigation?

2. Whether the applicant could claim parity with a co-accused who had been granted regular bail, for the purpose of obtaining anticipatory bail?

3. Whether the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant’s assertion that it was a counterblast established exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest protection?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning anticipatory bail, and held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, the Court emphasised that anticipatory bail is not the rule and that protection may be refused where it could hamper investigation or result in miscarriage of justice.

Under P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, arrest may form part of investigation and anticipatory bail must be granted only after considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of flight, and other relevant factors.

The Court also relied on Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528, regarding the need to preserve the investigating agency’s ability to interrogate the accused and recover relevant material, and on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, which requires consideration of the nature of the offence, the applicant’s role, and the likelihood of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence.

The Court further held that the standards for regular bail and anticipatory bail are distinct and that parity with a person granted regular bail is not automatically available in an anticipatory-bail application.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant were serious and supported by prima facie material, including the nude photographs in the case diary and the statements of the informant and her husband.

The allegations indicated that the applicant had a central role in the alleged honey-trap and extortion scheme, including arranging the meeting, facilitating the assault and obtaining ₹1,60,000.

Applying the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, the Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the prosecution case was false or motivated merely by a counterblast.

The investigation remained at a preliminary stage, and custodial interrogation was considered necessary to ascertain the truth and advance the investigation.

The Court also rejected reliance on the co-accused’s regular bail, observing that the considerations governing regular bail are materially different from those governing anticipatory bail.

The applicant’s reliance on the alleged delay, counterblast theory, absence of criminal antecedents and the co-accused’s regular bail did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest protection.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.