Anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 hinges on necessity of custodial interrogation, not gravity of allegation alone: MP High Court in Qureshi & Patidar v. CBI (Fake Encounter Probe)

Introduction

In a significant order on anticipatory bail within the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) framework, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), per Justice Subodh Abhyankar, granted anticipatory bail to two serving police officers—Anil Patidar (then SDOP, Manasa; presently Additional SP, Barwani) and Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi (then Sub-Inspector, PS Baghana)—in connection with a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into an alleged staged encounter of 08.02.2009 near Baisla Ghat, District Neemuch. The encounter was recorded at the time as the killing of one “Bansilal Gurjar”; however, Bansilal was later found alive in 2012, prompting CBI investigation in 2014 on the High Court’s directions in two writ petitions.

The applications—MCRC No. 24925 of 2025 (Anil Patidar) and MCRC No. 31423 of 2025 (Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi)—were heard together because both arise from the same CBI FIR (R.C.08(S)/2014/CBI/SC-III-ND, PS CBI New Delhi) alleging offences under Sections 307, 353, 332, 302/120-B, 193, 119, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case is that an unknown person was killed and falsely shown as Bansilal; forged/false records and coerced identifications were generated to support the encounter narrative; and even injuries to police personnel were simulated.

The central question was whether, despite the grave allegations of murder and conspiracy, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (read with the erstwhile Section 438 CrPC) could be extended to these two applicants who claim no specific role in coercing witnesses, have been available for investigation for years, and whose custodial interrogation, according to them, is unnecessary.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court allowed both anticipatory bail applications, directing that in the event of arrest the applicants be released on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with solvent surety of like amount, subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC (cooperation with investigation, availability for interrogation, etc.). The Court’s core findings were:

The case diary indicates that witnesses who later resiled from their 2009 identifications predominantly attributed coercion to T.I. Parshuram Singh Parmar (then TI, PS Kukdeshwar), not to the applicants. The case diary is “silent” about Parmar’s absence.
Anil Patidar has been available to the CBI since 2014; it is not the case that he absconded or neglected duties. On these facts, his custodial interrogation is not necessary.
On parity and limited role, the same rationale applies to Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi, who was not the station in-charge of the case and had joined the operation when called.
While the allegations are grave and the CBI relies on medical/opinion evidence suggesting fabrication (post-mortem reanalysis; injuries inconsistent with gunshots), gravity alone cannot eclipse the tests of necessity of custodial interrogation, cooperation, specific attribution, and risk factors at the anticipatory bail stage.

Factual Background and Timeline

The Court extracted a detailed chronology, material parts of which are:

04.02.2009: Incident at Village Sundi (PS Kukdeshwar) involving rescue of accused Ratanlal from Rajasthan Police; Crime No. 20/2009 registered against several including “Bansilal Gurjar.”
08.02.2009: A police operation near Baisla Ghat culminates in the death of a person purportedly identified by relatives and villagers as “Bansilal”; extensive panchnamas and seizure memos prepared; Crime No. 27/2009 registered at PS Rampura.
2011–2012: During investigation in another matter, disclosures indicate Bansilal is alive; he is arrested on 20.11.2012; a fresh FIR (Crime No. 63/2012) is registered against him for cheating/forgery-related offences.
2014: In W.P. No. 809/2014 (Goverdhan Pandya) and W.P. No. 10525/2013 (Ghanshyam Dhakad), the High Court directs the CBI to investigate the alleged fake encounter and the role of police officials. On 08.12.2014, CBI registers RC 08(S)/2014.
2015 onwards: Several witnesses, including the Panchayat Secretary who issued the death certificate and independent witness Dr. Shivnarayan, state that they were pressured by police (notably TI Parshuram S. Parmar) to identify the body as Bansilal and to issue documents accordingly.
Medical reviews: AIIMS opines on a localized crush injury inconsistent with a road accident narrative; a report by Dr. S. Patel opines that injuries to police personnel G.E. Carr and Vivek Gupta were not gunshot injuries but caused by blunt force.
2018: CBI notice to Anil Patidar; arrest warrant issued when he failed to appear on one date (the record mentions 11.04.2018; a later timeline entry notes 11.04.2025, which appears to be a clerical discrepancy).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The order does not cite case law expressly. However, its approach is consonant with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on anticipatory bail:

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980): Gravity of offence is a factor but not the sole determinant; anticipatory bail protects personal liberty and must be guided by careful judicial discretion.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011): Custodial interrogation should be granted significance; if not necessary, anticipatory bail is not to be denied merely due to serious allegations.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020): No automatic time-limiting of anticipatory bail; conditions and case-specific factors govern.

While these authorities are not cited in the order, the High Court’s metrics—cooperation, non-abscondence, absence of specific attribution of coercion to applicants, and lack of custodial interrogation necessity—closely mirror the Supreme Court’s doctrinal tests.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is structured around four core considerations, each anchored in the case diary and witness material:

Specific attribution and role delineation:
- Multiple witnesses who recanted their 2009 identifications of the deceased as “Bansilal” consistently attributed coercion to a particular officer—T.I. Parshuram Singh Parmar—not to the applicants.
- Even the then Superintendent of Police, Ved Prakash (later retired IG), in his statement, notes operational control and post-incident processes in which TI Parmar featured. The Court explicitly remarks that the case diary is “silent” about Parmar’s “absence,” indicating an investigative gap that also informs the proportionality analysis at bail stage.
Necessity of custodial interrogation:
- Anil Patidar had been available to the CBI “throughout since 2014.” The case did not disclose abscondence or dereliction of duty.
- In such circumstances, the Court held custodial interrogation “would not be necessary.” The mere gravity of the allegations or the issuance of an arrest warrant for non-appearance on one occasion did not suffice to justify incarceration pre-trial.
Parity and limited role:
- For Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi, the Court extended relief on parity and role considerations, emphasizing that he was posted at another police station and had joined the operation when called.
- Since Anil Patidar was granted anticipatory bail on the above parameters, parity dictated similar relief for Qureshi.
Gravity versus liberty balance:
- The CBI highlighted serious incriminatory material (re-examination of post-mortem, medical opinions suggesting fabrication of gunshot injuries, and arrests of other police officials).
- The Court did not minimize the gravity; it accepted that seriousness exists but reiterated that seriousness alone cannot trump liberty where the investigative need for custody is unpersuasive and the applicants have cooperated without specific allegations of coercion against them.

The operative outcome is that both applicants qualify for the “direction in the event of arrest,” with bonds and standard Section 438(2) CrPC conditions to ensure continued cooperation.

Impact

The order has several practical and doctrinal implications:

Continuity under BNSS: By entertaining the applications “under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023/438 CrPC,” the Court implicitly affirms the substantive continuity of anticipatory bail principles under BNSS. Courts may continue to apply established tests (custodial interrogation necessity, specific role, cooperation, risk assessment) notwithstanding the renumbering and statutory transition.
Gravity is not dispositive: Even in alleged fake encounter cases—among the gravest of allegations against law enforcement—anticipatory bail remains available if the record does not justify custodial interrogation and there is no concrete risk of abscondence, tampering, or non-cooperation.
Role-centric scrutiny: The decision underscores a role-and-attribution approach at the bail stage: when the case diary and witness statements center culpability on another officer (here, TI Parshuram S. Parmar), peripheral officers may be granted anticipatory bail absent specific imputations.
Parity doctrine reaffirmed: Relief to one co-accused (Patidar) was extended to another (Qureshi) on parity, especially where the latter’s role is not shown to be greater and investigative custody is equally unnecessary.
Investigative discipline signaled: The Court’s observation that the case diary is “silent” regarding the absence of the officer repeatedly named by witnesses is a pointed reminder that investigative focus must stay aligned with the material on record; misalignment will weigh in bail adjudication.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anticipatory bail (Section 482 BNSS/earlier Section 438 CrPC): A pre-arrest protective order that directs release on bail if the applicant is arrested. It does not exonerate; it protects liberty while ensuring cooperation with investigation.
Custodial interrogation: Questioning a suspect while in police custody. Courts often assess whether such custody is necessary for effective investigation; if not, anticipatory bail may be appropriate.
Case diary: The investigatory record maintained by police/CBI. Courts may peruse it at the bail stage to appraise the strength of allegations and investigative needs, though it is not substantive evidence at trial.
Panchnama and identification: A panchnama is a contemporaneous record of a procedural step (recovery, identification, etc.) prepared in the presence of panch witnesses. Later resiling (retracting) by witnesses due to alleged police pressure affects the credibility of such records but is a matter for trial; at bail stage, it can inform role attribution.
BNSS transition: BNSS, 2023 replaces the CrPC, 1973 with new numbering (anticipatory bail is now Section 482 BNSS). Courts often cite both to bridge the transition for clarity. Substantive principles remain largely continuous unless expressly altered.
Sections invoked:
- IPC 302/120-B: Murder with conspiracy.
- IPC 193, 201, 119: Fabrication of evidence, causing disappearance of evidence, and concealment by public servant.
- IPC 307, 353, 332: Attempt to murder, assault to deter public servant, voluntarily causing hurt to public servant.
- Arms Act 25/27: Unlawful possession/use of arms.
Medical-legal findings: Reanalysis of post-mortem by AIIMS and expert opinion (Dr. S. Patel) indicating non-firearm injuries to police personnel and crush-type injuries to the deceased are probative to the fake encounter theory. At the bail stage, they primarily go to gravity and probable cause—not to the necessity of custody absent specific role/reasons.

Notable Nuances and Observations

Clerical discrepancy: The timeline lists an arrest warrant against Anil Patidar on 11.04.2025, but elsewhere the order notes 11.04.2018. The 2025 entry appears to be a typographical error. The Court nonetheless emphasizes long-standing availability and non-abscondence.
Witness recantations: Several witnesses—including the Panchayat Secretary who issued the death certificate and an independent doctor—describe coercion and pressure by named officers (not the applicants). The Court relies on this to assess specific attribution at the bail stage, without adjudging final credibility (a trial issue).
Standard conditions: Though the application invoked Section 482 BNSS, the operative conditions reference Section 438(2) CrPC. This dual reference is becoming common in transition, reflecting functional continuity in bail conditions.

Why the Court granted anticipatory bail here

No specific imputations of coercion or fabrication against the applicants in the case diary; principal allegations center on TI Parshuram S. Parmar.
Applicants’ availability since 2014 and absence of abscondence; one-off non-appearance leading to an arrest warrant did not outweigh the overall cooperation profile.
Lack of demonstrated need for custodial interrogation to advance the investigation at this stage.
Parity for Qureshi once Patidar was granted relief, coupled with Qureshi’s peripheral role (joined when called; different police station).
Recognition that seriousness of the charges, by itself, cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail where the other bail tests favor liberty.

Potential Influence on Future Cases

Police accountability cases: Courts may continue to grant anticipatory bail to officers in serious cases if the record shows lack of specific role and no custodial interrogation need. This re-emphasizes that accountability must proceed through focused investigation and trial, not pre-trial incarceration by default.
BNSS-era bail practice: The order provides a template for articulating bail tests under Section 482 BNSS, showing continuity with pre-BNSS jurisprudence and encouraging precision about role, necessity, and risk rather than gravity alone.
Investigative focus: CBI and state agencies may need to ensure that the principal named officers (as per witness material) are appropriately addressed in the case diary and proceedings; gaps can tilt the bail balance in favor of co-accused.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order in the connected anticipatory bail applications of Anil Patidar and Mukhthar Rashid Qureshi crystallizes a key principle under Section 482 of the BNSS: the grant of anticipatory bail in grave offences turns fundamentally on the necessity of custodial interrogation, the specificity of allegations against the applicants, their cooperation history, and risk factors—not on gravity alone. By highlighting the absence of specific attributions to these applicants and the investigative silence around the officer repeatedly named by witnesses, the Court balanced the imperatives of a serious CBI probe into an alleged fake encounter with the constitutional commitment to personal liberty.

The decision reaffirms doctrinal continuity from the CrPC regime and signals that, even in cases alleging staged encounters and fabricated evidence, anticipatory bail remains a live remedy where custody is not demonstrably necessary and where role-based scrutiny favors the applicant. At the same time, the order is circumscribed to the bail stage; it neither adjudicates guilt nor diminishes the seriousness of the allegations, which must be tested at trial on a complete evidentiary record.