Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Threatening Rape Complainant With Pistol; Weapon Remains Unrecovered

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in FIR No. 1270/2025, registered at PS Karol Bagh under Sections 64(1), 75, 351(2), 123 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, during an incident at a hotel, the petitioner threatened a cab driver and the prosecutrix with a pistol, brought MD which he and a co-accused allegedly forced the prosecutrix to consume, and threatened her after the co-accused had sexually assaulted her.

The co-accused was arrested and charged; the petitioner’s role remained under investigation, the alleged pistol had not been recovered, and hotel CCTV showed the petitioner, co-accused and prosecutrix entering and leaving the hotel.

The petitioner had joined the investigation on 31 January 2026.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the need for further investigation and the petitioner’s two other registered FIRs.

The petitioner’s earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail. Its exercise is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of the case; it is an extraordinary remedy that requires caution, particularly where protection may hamper investigation or risk interference with evidence (Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382).

Relevant considerations include the nature and gravity of the accusation, the accused’s precise role and antecedents, the risk of flight or repetition, the possibility of witness tampering or threats, and the need to balance a fair investigation against unjustified detention (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694).

The absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, does not entitle an applicant to anticipatory bail; the Court must consider the entire case and the nature of the offence, while leaving the question of police remand to the competent court (P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157).

The Court found that investigation into the petitioner’s role was ongoing and that the alleged pistol remained unrecovered; the State intended to file a supplementary charge-sheet after completing the investigation.

It considered the allegations serious, including the alleged threat to the prosecutrix with a pistol, and weighed them alongside the petitioner’s two other registered FIRs.

Although those FIRs did not establish guilt, the Court held that the antecedents, considered with the allegations in this case, weighed against anticipatory bail.

Applying the caution required in serious cases and the need not to impede the investigation, it declined relief.

It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not affect the trial or express an opinion on the merits.