Prima facie evidence of land grabbing precludes anticipatory bail regardless of lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding three FIRs registered under Sections 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and provisions of the Land Grabbing Act

The complainants, power of attorney holders for NRIs residing in the USA, alleged that when the owners visited their lands in July 2024, the applicants—who had no title—threatened them with deadly weapons and refused to vacate

The applicants contended they had been in continuous possession for 100 years, citing old revenue entries and a pending civil suit for injunction

investigation revealed that the applicants' ancestors' names were removed from revenue records in 1966, and the Land Grabbing Committee found no legal authorization for their possession

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite a prima facie finding of land grabbing and criminal intimidation

2. Whether the lack of a need for custodial interrogation is a sufficient sole ground for granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case against the accused is established

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, which outlines factors for bail including the gravity of the accusation and the possibility of fleeing

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [p. 8] and Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana [p. 10], emphasizing the balance between individual liberty and societal interest.

Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., establishing that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail if a prima facie case exists

The court reasoned that while the applicants claimed long-term tenancy, they failed to produce any contemporary documentation of ownership or lawful authorization before the Land Grabbing Committee or the Court

It noted that the revenue entry they relied upon was deleted in 1966 and remained unchallenged for decades

The court observed that the pending civil suit appeared to be an attempt to "create evidence," as no interim protection had been sought since its filing in 2024

the court highlighted that prior quashing petitions filed by the applicants were dismissed with a finding that a prima facie case under the Land Grabbing Act existed

Applying the Sumitha Pradeep precedent, the court rejected the argument that the filing of a charge-sheet against co-accused (rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary) was a sufficient reason to grant bail

The court concluded that the nature and gravity of the offence did not warrant the exercise of discretionary power in favor of the applicants. Consequently, the applications for anticipatory bail were rejected, and the Rule was discharged