Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS: Abscondence and Non‑Bailable Warrants as Strong Grounds for Refusal in Serious Offences
1) Introduction
In Murari Lal And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court, decided on 27.07.2026),
the applicants sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 600 of 2025 registered under
Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, alleging an “honour killing” of
Anshu Yadav.
The prosecution case centered on a video allegedly sent by the deceased on 24.10.2025 expressing apprehension that her family
members (including the applicants) would kill her, followed by allegations that she was killed on 25.10.2025 and her body was
disposed of in the Yamuna. The defence attacked the digital evidence, identification of the body, delay in FIR, and asserted
non-involvement, including an alibi for applicant no. 1 (a Sub-Inspector).
The key issues were: (i) whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a serious alleged honour-killing case relying substantially
on circumstantial and digital evidence; (ii) the effect of non-bailable warrants and alleged abscondence/non-cooperation
on maintainability/merits of anticipatory bail; and (iii) whether the investigation would be impeded without custodial interrogation.
2) Summary of the Judgment
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. It held that anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious offences; that the applicants were
named in the FIR and implicated by the deceased’s alleged video; that custodial interrogation was
required at the investigation stage; and crucially, that non-bailable warrants had already been issued on 24.02.2026
and the applicants were found to be absconding/non-cooperating, disentitling them to pre-arrest protection.
3) Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The Court invoked Bhagwan Dass to underscore the judiciary’s strong stance against honour killings and to
emphasise that conviction can rest on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete. This was used
to justify allowing the investigation to proceed robustly, rather than granting pre-arrest protection that could impede evidence
collection.
This was the judgment’s central anchor on the effect of warrants/proclamation. The High Court reproduced paragraph 30 to hold that:
(i) anticipatory bail is not the rule; (ii) courts must be cautious in serious cases; and (iii) when warrant of arrest or
proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke extraordinary power, save in extreme exceptional cases.
Applying this, the Court treated the issuance of non-bailable warrants dated 24.02.2026 and continued non-appearance
as a decisive factor against granting anticipatory bail.
(c) P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24
Relying on paragraph 69, the Court reiterated that arrest is part of investigation and anticipatory bail interferes in
investigation; therefore it must be granted only in exceptional cases after considering gravity, flight risk, and other factors. This
supported the Court’s view that custodial interrogation may be necessary and pre-arrest bail could hamper evidence gathering.
(d) Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2528
The High Court cited this decision (including extracted discussions) to reinforce two propositions: (i) arrest can be necessary for
effective investigation, discovery of material facts, witness protection, and maintaining order; and (ii) anticipatory bail must balance
liberty with investigative needs.
(e) Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303
Quoted within Kishor Vishwasrao Patil, Adri Dharan Das was used for the principle that courts ordinarily should not
interfere with investigation/arrest in cognizable offences through interim restraint orders under anticipatory bail jurisdiction, as it
may amount to impermissible interference in investigation.
Although cited by the applicants to argue that cooperation and low abscondence risk favour anticipatory bail, the High Court treated
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre primarily as setting parameters—nature and gravity, exact role, careful evaluation of material, and
whether allegations are meant to humiliate. The Court concluded that the applicants failed to show false implication and, on facts, were
not cooperating (a finding that neutralised the applicants’ reliance on this precedent).
The applicants relied on Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth for anticipatory bail principles. The High Court distinguished it on facts:
that case involved shifting allegations and later addition of a rape charge after years, whereas the present matter involved an alleged
honour killing with a pre-death video naming the applicants and ongoing investigation. Hence, no benefit was extended.
The extracted passage referenced Jai Prakash Singh to reiterate that anticipatory bail in serious offences requires satisfaction
of strict parameters and recorded reasons, and is granted only in exceptional circumstances where false implication is prima facie shown.
The extract also mentioned D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, State Of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain,
and Union Of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal as supporting authorities for a restrictive approach.
(i) Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1
Cited for the Constitution Bench guidance that courts should consider nature and gravity, role, likelihood of influencing investigation,
tampering with evidence, and fleeing justice. The High Court aligned its refusal with these factors, especially given the allegation that
applicant no. 1 (a police officer) could misuse position and the applicants’ alleged evasion.
The Court reaffirmed the classic position from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and should
not be used routinely—supporting a cautious approach in grave offences with ongoing investigation.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
-
Seriousness of allegations and investigation stage: The Court treated the allegation as a grave “honour killing,”
noting that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and evidence was still being collected (including DNA-related steps).
-
Material implicating the applicants: The applicants were named in the FIR and were allegedly named by the deceased
in a video sent shortly before death. The Court did not conduct a mini-trial on authenticity/admissibility at this stage.
-
Need for custodial interrogation: The Court accepted the prosecution submission that custodial interrogation was
required to “unearth the truth,” consistent with Supreme Court guidance that arrest can be integral to investigation.
-
Non-bailable warrants and abscondence/non-cooperation: The decisive consideration was that non-bailable
warrants had been issued and the applicants were found to be avoiding process for months. Applying
Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, the Court held that such conduct disentitles an accused from
invoking the extraordinary pre-arrest remedy, absent extreme exceptional circumstances (which were not shown).
-
Distinguishing applicant-cited precedent: The Court distinguished Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth and found the
reliance on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre unhelpful because the factual premise (cooperation and no abscondence) was not met.
-
Regular bail vs anticipatory bail: The Court explicitly stated that parameters differ; grounds sufficient for regular
bail do not automatically justify anticipatory bail—reinforcing that pre-arrest protection is more exceptional.
3.3 Impact
While the decision largely applies established Supreme Court doctrine, its practical significance lies in how it consolidates the
approach under the BNSS regime (application labelled under Section 482 BNSS) for grave offences:
-
Stronger barrier once NBWs are issued: The judgment signals that once a court has issued non-bailable
warrants and the accused remains absent, anticipatory bail will ordinarily be refused, with courts expecting the accused to
first submit to process rather than seek pre-arrest insulation.
-
Honour killing allegations heighten caution: By invoking Bhagwan Dass, the Court frames honour killings as a
category demanding heightened judicial vigilance at the pre-arrest stage.
-
Digital evidence disputes may not decide pre-arrest bail: Challenges about AI-generation, forensic verification, and
admissibility certificates are likely to be treated as matters for investigation/trial unless they clearly demolish prosecution case at
threshold.
-
Investigative necessities prioritized: The reasoning strengthens the investigative agency’s claim for custodial
interrogation in circumstantial-evidence cases involving disposal of body, location evidence, and identification/DNA issues.
4) Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Anticipatory bail: A court order granting protection from arrest before arrest occurs. It is “extraordinary” because it
restrains the normal investigative power to arrest in cognizable offences.
-
Non-bailable warrant (NBW): A warrant directing arrest where release is not automatic at the police level; it reflects
the court’s assessment that the person is not appearing despite process.
-
Proclamation proceedings (Section 82 Cr.P.C./Section 84 BNSS): A formal process declaring an accused as absconding and
requiring appearance; courts treat initiation/issuance of such coercive steps as incompatible with discretionary pre-arrest relief.
-
Custodial interrogation: Questioning of an accused while in custody; courts sometimes accept it as necessary where
investigation requires confronting the accused with material, tracing co-accused links, recoveries, digital trails, or testing
explanations.
-
Circumstantial evidence and “chain of circumstances”: Proof based on multiple indirect facts; conviction is possible if
all links together point only to guilt, excluding reasonable alternative explanations.
-
Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: A certification requirement (akin to evidentiary conditions
for certain electronic records). In bail proceedings, courts often avoid definitive rulings on admissibility unless it fundamentally
affects the prima facie assessment.
-
Habeas corpus writ petition: A proceeding to produce a missing/detained person before court; its dismissal does not by
itself negate later criminal prosecution if new allegations/material emerge.
5) Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail rests on a clear synthesis of Supreme Court jurisprudence: anticipatory bail is a
narrow, discretionary, and exceptional remedy—especially in grave offences like alleged honour killing—and becomes even less available
where non-bailable warrants have been issued and the accused is found to be absconding or non-cooperative.
By applying Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar and Another and related precedent, the judgment reinforces that the
criminal process cannot be simultaneously defied and invoked for extraordinary protection, and that investigative needs (including
custodial interrogation) may legitimately outweigh pre-arrest liberty claims at an early stage.