Denial of pre-arrest bail where prima facie evidence suggests retaliatory violence and custodial interrogation is necessary.

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding Agartala Women P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026.

The informant, Smt. Paramita Roy, alleged that on January 8, 2026, the petitioner and others trespassed into her home, physically assaulted her and her husband, outraged her modesty, and attempted to kill her by pouring petrol on her person.

Conversely, the petitioner argued that the informant's husband is a habitual offender and that the case was a retaliatory, concocted narrative following an earlier incident the same night where the informant's husband allegedly attacked the petitioner with a *dao*.

The petitioner highlighted that 82 local residents had signed a representation against the informant's husband for anti-social activities.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail given the nature of the allegations and the materials collected during the investigation.

The court primarily considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail (analogous to Sec 438 of the CrPC).

It also examined the penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 74 (assault to outrage modesty), 304(2) (snatching/theft), and 326(f) (mischief by fire).

The court referenced *Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat* (2025) regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation in cases not purely based on documentary evidence.

The court referenced *Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (1975) regarding the relevance of material omissions in an FIR under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.

The court observed that the Case Diary contained *prima facie* incriminating materials, including statements from the informant and her relatives alleging physical assault, outraging of modesty, and an attempt on her life.

The court noted physical evidence, such as a seized burnt motorcycle and bicycle, which supported the prosecution's claim of arson.

While acknowledging the petitioner’s defense—that the FIR might be a retaliatory measure following an earlier altercation involving the informant's husband—the court held that the veracity of the prosecution’s story and any "improvements" made in subsequent statements cannot be critically analyzed or judged at the pre-trial stage before a charge-sheet is filed.

The gravity of the specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner outweighed the arguments regarding the informant's husband's character.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected and disposed of accordingly.

The court directed the return of the Case Diary to the learned Public Prosecutor.