Completed investigation and prior recovery of stolen articles supported anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Crime No. 52 of 2024 was registered by Madhugiri Police Station under Section 379 IPC against an unknown person following a complaint dated 4 May 2024.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against three persons; the petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 3 for offences under Sections 411 and 413 IPC. His application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 25 July 2026

The petitioner submitted that the articles in this case had already been recovered during investigation of Crime No. 128 of 2023, in which he had been arrested, and that he had received anticipatory bail in two other cases involving similar offences

The prosecution did not seriously dispute those submissions

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 52 of 2024, given that the charge sheet had been filed and the relevant articles had already been recovered.

Whether the petitioner’s prior custody and the grant of anticipatory bail in similar cases supported granting him the same relief in this case.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for seeking anticipatory bail; the alleged offences were under Sections 379, 411 and 413 of the Indian Penal Code.

In assessing the request, the Court relied on its earlier order in Criminal Petition No. 9947 of 2026 c/w Criminal Petition No. 10026 of 2026, where it considered the petitioner’s prior custody, recovery of the stolen articles, completion of investigation and the absence of any demonstrated need for further custodial interrogation.

The Court applied those considerations to the present petition, in which the charge sheet had also been filed.

The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years in Crime No. 128 of 2023 and that the articles relevant to the present case had been recovered during the investigation of that crime.

In the earlier bail order, the Court had treated the recovery and the prosecution’s failure to seek the petitioner’s presence under warrant during that period as indicating that custodial interrogation was not required; investigation was also complete.

Because the charge sheet in the present case had likewise been filed, the Court found the circumstances sufficient to entertain the anticipatory-bail request.

He was required to appear before the Trial Court within 15 days, execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regularly attend court unless exempted, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, cooperate with police when called upon, and not involve himself in similar offences in future.