Prima Facie Case Prevails Over Lack of Need for Custodial Interrogation in Anticipatory Bail Applications

The applicant, named as Accused No. 3, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The FIR (C.R. No. 11824002260557/2026) alleged that the complainant and one Rahulbhai were lured to a riverside by Saavanbhai (Accused No. 1) under the pretext of showing woods, where they were subsequently assaulted by three named accused and one unknown individual.

The applicant contended that his role was limited to kick and fist blows, punishable under bailable sections, and that he had no criminal history.

The State opposed the bail, citing medical evidence of head injuries to the complainant and noting that the applicant was an associate of Accused No. 1, a habitual offender with 13 criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the prima facie evidence gathered?

The court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 CrPC), governing anticipatory bail.

It relied on Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022), which established that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation is not a standalone ground for bail; rather, the court must first consider the prima facie case, the nature of the offense, and the severity of punishment.

The court also applied the factors laid out in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), including the gravity of the accusation, the exact role of the accused, and the likelihood of repeating offenses.

The court reasoned that while the applicant claimed a minor role, the investigation material—including witness statements and the injury certificate—disclosed his active participation in the assault.

The court noted that the applicant was working for Accused No. 1, who has a significant criminal history, suggesting a concerning association.

Though the defense argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the court emphasized that a prima facie case of involvement exists under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 309(4), 309(6), 115(2), and 126(2).

Consequently, the court found that the rights of an orderly society and the rule of law outweighed the applicant's plea for personal liberty in this instance, as the discretionary power of pre-arrest bail is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected, and the rule was discharged.

The court concluded that the prima facie involvement in the assault justified the denial of pre-arrest protection.