Completed investigation and no need for custodial interrogation justify confirming anticipatory bail.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 153 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sahaspur, Dehradun, under Sections 105 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution allegation, as recounted by the applicants, was that they assaulted the informant’s mother on 8 June 2025; she later experienced pain in her head and chest and died while being taken to hospital on 16 June 2025.

An order dated 13 August 2025 had granted the applicants interim protection from arrest.

The State submitted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; the applicants contended that they had cooperated with the investigation and sought confirmation of the interim protection.

Whether the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants should be made absolute after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicants’ conduct while under interim protection and the absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation warranted continuation of protection from arrest.

The FIR invoked Sections 105 and 115(2) of the BNS.

In considering whether to confirm interim anticipatory bail, the Court assessed the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, whether custodial interrogation remained necessary, and whether the applicants had misused their protection or failed to cooperate.

The Court found that the applicants had remained under interim protection without any recorded allegation that they misused it or failed to cooperate.

The investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the prosecution had not shown that custodial interrogation was still required.

Given these circumstances, the Court found no compelling reason to disturb the existing protection.

In the event of arrest, the applicants are to be released on the same terms and conditions as in that order, subject to any further condition imposed by the trial court in accordance with law.

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