Prior abscondence alone does not justify denying anticipatory bail after investigation is complete.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that, during a raid on 21 May 2025, police found the petitioners and accused No. 3 had stored approximately 90 metric tons of sand allegedly taken from the nearby Bhima River.

The investigation was complete and a charge sheet had been filed; the petitioners stated they were innocent, while the prosecution opposed bail, citing their alleged abscondence and absence of special grounds.

The Sessions Court had rejected their anticipatory-bail application, while accused No. 3 had been granted anticipatory bail.

The Court considered Section 482 of the BNSS, under which anticipatory bail may be granted, and referred to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 480 of the BNSS in noting that petitioner No. 1, a woman aged about 60, was eligible to seek bail.

The alleged offence, Section 379 IPC, was punishable by imprisonment for up to three years and was triable by a Magistrate.

The Court also applied the case-specific considerations that completion of investigation, lack of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation, and parity with a co-accused may support anticipatory bail; it cited no judicial precedent.

The Court found that the charge sheet had been filed, the tractor, trailer, and sand had been seized, and the prosecution had produced no material showing that custodial interrogation or further investigation involving the petitioners was necessary.

It also noted the absence of material indicating prior similar offences and the petitioners’ residence within the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Their alleged abscondence during the investigation did not, in the circumstances, justify refusing bail, particularly given that accused No. 3 had received anticipatory bail on materially similar allegations.

The Court concluded that any prosecution concerns could be addressed through conditions.

They were required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execute personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 each with one surety for the like sum, cooperate with any further investigation, attend court as directed, refrain from tampering with witnesses or obstructing proceedings, and commit no similar or other offence during the pendency of the case.