Identification based solely on gait by interested witnesses is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 422/2025 (PS Shaheen Bagh) registered under Sections 287, 105, 106(1), and 326(g) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged the petitioner deliberately set fire to a building, resulting in one death.

The petitioner’s son, who resided in the building and was estranged from the petitioner due to a marriage dispute, identified the petitioner from CCTV footage based solely on his "gait".

The petitioner contended that he was being falsely implicated due to property litigations with his brother and son.

Despite opportunities, the State failed to file a status report.

Notably, the petitioner had voluntarily written to the Investigating Officer (IO) requesting to be called for investigation before a notice was eventually issued.

1. Whether the evidence collected during investigation, specifically identification by gait through CCTV footage, constitutes sufficient material to deny anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the state’s demand for custodial interrogation was genuine and necessary for the recovery of evidence.

The court evaluated the application within the framework of anticipatory bail jurisprudence (Section 482 BNSS / 438 CrPC context).

It applied the principle that custodial interrogation should be granted only when the request is "genuine and not only as a ploy to get the anticipatory bail application dismissed".

The court emphasized that the curtailment of personal liberty requires "sufficient material collected during investigation".

Upon reviewing the CCTV footage, the court noted that the individual's face was not visible due to a helmet, and neither the scooty's registration nor its color could be identified.

The court expressed skepticism toward the "gait identification" performed by the petitioner's son and brother, given their ongoing hostile litigations with the petitioner.

The court highlighted significant investigative lapses: the IO failed to seize the car where the fire originated and the FSL seizure memo lacked the expert’s signature.

Regarding custodial interrogation, the court noted the petitioner's proactive cooperation (writing a letter to join the probe) and the State’s failure to file a status report as factors diminishing the necessity for custody.

It held that there was no sufficient material at this stage to justify depriving the petitioner of his liberty.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety.

The petitioner was further ordered to join the investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO.