Pre-arrest bail granted where medical evidence negates serious allegations, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary.

The petitioners (Jaher Ali, Ahidul Sheikh, Sazidul Sheikh, and Arjina Begum) sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 13/2026.

The case arose from an incident where an alleged victim was caught sexually assaulting a minor relative of the petitioners, leading to a crowd gathering and allegedly misbehaving with police.

The petitioners were charged under various sections of the BNS, the Arms Act, and the PDPP Act.

The defense argued that Petitioner No. 1 was not named in the FIR, Petitioner No. 4 is a woman, and the medical reports did not support the allegations of brutal assault made by the victim in a cross-FIR (Case No. 14/2026).

1. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary given the facts and the medical evidence available.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of pre-arrest bail.

It considered the penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 127(2), 121(2), 132, 149, and 304, alongside Section 25(1AB) of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.

The court relied on the principle that pre-arrest bail may be granted if custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary for the investigation.

The court scrutinized the case diary and the medical injury reports, noting that the injuries sustained by the victim were classified as "simple".

The court highlighted a significant discrepancy: while the victim's cross-FIR alleged brutal torture with weapons like rods and lathis, the medical reports failed to substantiate such severe allegations.

The court took judicial notice of the fact that the victim was found at the petitioners' house under compromising circumstances related to an alleged assault on a minor.

Given that one petitioner was not named in the FIR and another was a woman, and observing that the investigation did not require custody to proceed, the court found the petitioners' plea for protection justified.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners be released on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety.

The relief was made subject to the conditions that the petitioners cooperate with the investigation and do not intimidate or influence witnesses.