Anticipatory bail was denied where prima facie robbery involvement emerged during an ongoing investigation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest in Crime No. 397/2026 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for alleged offences under Sections 309(6), 324(2), 119(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused stopped and assaulted the complainant and his companions at Hathnewara turn, threatened them, and forcibly took ₹1,500 from the complainant.

The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that he and his associates operated a gaushala and had gone to the area to treat an injured calf after a vehicle allegedly struck it. He contended that the complainant, a journalist, subsequently lodged a false report alleging robbery and damage to the vehicle.

The State opposed anticipatory bail on the grounds that the investigation was at an initial stage, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the remaining accused were absconding.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 309(6), 324(2), 119(1) and 3(5) of the BNS?

Whether the stage of investigation, the non-filing of the charge-sheet, the abscondence of co-accused, and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement justified refusal of anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs applications for anticipatory bail.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 309(6), 324(2), 119(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

In exercising discretion on anticipatory bail, the Court considered the prima facie involvement of the accused, the seriousness and nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the non-filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that co-accused persons remained absconding.

After considering the submissions and perusing the case diary, the Court found that the investigation was still at an initial stage and that the charge-sheet had not been filed.

The Court further noted that the remaining accused were absconding and that the case diary disclosed prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence, described by the Court as robbery of the complainant.

On these considerations, the Court held that the applicant did not merit the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail, notwithstanding his defence that he had been falsely implicated.

No protection from arrest or other relief was granted.