Criminal antecedents alone cannot bar anticipatory bail; seriousness and prima facie role require independent assessment.

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in G.R. Case No. 490 of 2026 arising from Paradeep P.S. Case No. 147 of 2026.

The FIR alleged that three unknown persons arrived on a red motorcycle and threw three bottle bombs at the house of Basant Biswal, Chairman of Paradeep Municipality; two bombs exploded, causing smoke, while the complainant’s wife was inside offering evening prayers.

The case was initially registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 288 and 3(5) of the BNS, and was subsequently altered to include Sections 61(2), 109(1), 326(g), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had commissioned the attack, relying principally on statements of co-accused persons and other witnesses concerning the motorcycle and attempted procurement of petrol.

The petitioner denied involvement, alleged political vendetta, and contended that he was not one of the persons who threw the bombs.

Although the petitioner had several criminal antecedents, the record showed acquittals in most cases and no alleged involvement in any offence between 2018 and 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail where the allegation against him concerned conspiracy and was principally founded on statements of co-accused persons, rather than direct attribution of the bomb attack.

2. Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the prosecution’s plea for custodial interrogation justified refusal of anticipatory bail.

3. Whether custodial interrogation was necessary for a free and fair investigation in the facts of the case.

The Court applied Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, concerning causing or attempting to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or property, along with the relevant provisions of the BNS, including Sections 61(2) on criminal conspiracy, 109(1) on attempt to murder, 326(g) on mischief by fire or explosive substance, 351(3) on aggravated criminal intimidation, 288 on negligent conduct involving explosive substances, and Section 3(5) on common intention.

It held that anticipatory bail is a form of post-arrest bail and that the principles governing ordinary bail are relevant to pre-arrest bail: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.

Criminal antecedents must be considered but cannot, by themselves, bar anticipatory bail; the seriousness of the offence, severity of punishment, and prima facie role of the accused must be independently assessed: Ankit Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court also recognised that a co-accused’s statement may be considered during investigation, but it must be balanced against the presumption of innocence and the accused’s constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21: Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan.

The distinction between custodial interrogation with and without protective bail was noted from State v. Anil Sharma, but found inapplicable on the facts.

The Court found that the prosecution did not allege that the petitioner was one of the motorcyclists who physically threw the bottle bombs.

His alleged involvement was limited to conspiracy, and the principal material relied upon consisted of statements made by co-accused persons in custody.

Although such statements could be considered at the investigative stage, they did not, in the circumstances, outweigh the petitioner’s claim to personal liberty, particularly when the petitioner’s prior cases had largely ended in acquittal and there had been no allegation against him for approximately eight years.

The Court also found no persuasive basis to conclude that the petitioner would abscond or interfere with the investigation.

Since he had subsequently joined the investigation and could be subjected to appropriate conditions, custodial interrogation was held unnecessary.

The petitioner was specifically required to cooperate with the investigation, not leave the State of Odisha without informing the Investigating Officer and the jurisdictional Court, and not leave India without permission of the competent Court until completion of the investigation.

The ABLAPL was accordingly disposed of.