Anticipatory bail was made absolute after the charge-sheet was filed, with no demonstrated need for custodial interrogation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 180 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, Haridwar, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The FIR alleged that he had physical relations with the informant’s sister for three years on the pretext of marriage.

The applicant denied the allegation and stated that, following their engagement in 2023, he discovered that she was in a relationship with another person.

A coordinate Bench had granted him interim protection from arrest on 10 June 2025.

He submitted that he cooperated with the investigation and that the charge-sheet had been filed; the State opposed the application on the ground that the allegations were serious.

Whether the interim anticipatory-bail protection should be made absolute after the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed.

Whether the applicant’s conduct during the period of interim protection and the absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation supported continuation of protection from arrest.

The application concerned anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 69 of the BNS.

The Court assessed whether the existing interim protection should continue by considering the applicant’s conduct during that protection, cooperation with the investigation, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and whether the prosecution had shown a present need for custodial interrogation.

The Court cited no precedent or further statutory test in its order.

The Court found no indication that the applicant had misused the interim protection or failed to cooperate with the investigation; instead, he had remained available to the Investigating Officer.

Because the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, the matter had progressed beyond the investigative stage, and the prosecution had not shown that custodial interrogation remained necessary.

In those circumstances, the Court found no compelling reason to withdraw the protection already granted.

In the event of arrest, the applicant is to be released on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions as in the interim order, and remains subject to any further conditions imposed by the trial court in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of the merits.