Filing of a charge sheet does not, by itself, bar anticipatory bail.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 5 to 8, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case arising from a fatal assault allegedly committed by a group of accused following a dispute over possession of agricultural land.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners participated in the incident and assaulted his mother; the deceased was allegedly killed by other accused.

The police filed a charge sheet, naming the petitioners for offences including Sections 109(1) and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioners’ alleged abscondence during investigation, and Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 157.

1. Whether anticipatory bail could be granted after the investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed, notwithstanding the petitioners’ alleged abscondence and the serious offences alleged.

2. Whether the petitioners’ circumstances—including their being women, their lack of prior antecedents, and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation—justified anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

Section 482 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The Court referred to Section 480(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as supporting consideration of bail for women.

It considered Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 157, where anticipatory bail was denied in materially different circumstances, including repeated bail applications, failure to appear before the investigating officer, proclamation as offenders, and serious allegations involving the Arms Act.

The Court treated the filing of a charge sheet as not, by itself, precluding anticipatory bail, particularly where custodial interrogation was no longer required and any risks could be addressed by conditions.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s case and the filing of the charge sheet but noted that the allegations specifically attributed to these petitioners were that they assaulted the complainant’s mother while she attempted to rescue the deceased.

It declined to determine disputed witness statements or contradictions at the bail stage.

The Court distinguished Balmukund Singh Gautam because the petitioners were women, had no reported antecedents, and had not been declared proclaimed offenders; it also found no need for their custodial interrogation after completion of the investigation.

It concluded that conditions could address the prosecution’s concerns about attendance, cooperation, and witness interference.

They were required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days and execute personal bonds of ₹2,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum; they must cooperate with any further investigation, attend court when directed, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the investigation, and not commit similar or other offences during the case.