Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently held that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 482(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not absolute. It clarified that courts can examine whether allegations prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the specified offences before deciding whether a pre-arrest bail application is maintainable. Applying that test, the court rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed by two men accused in separate cases involving minor girls.
Justice MM Nerlikar said the court’s scrutiny must remain limited to determining whether the statutory ingredients are prima facie established. “If they are, the bar operates; if they are not, the application remains maintainable,” he said. The judge cautioned that this narrow examination cannot become a full assessment of the evidence or the ordinary grounds advanced in support of anticipatory bail.
The ruling arose from applications filed by two persons from Gadchiroli and Akola who sought protection from arrest in separate criminal cases in which Section 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), concerning rape of a woman below 16 years of age, had been invoked.
The petitioners argued that Section 482(4) should not be treated as an absolute prohibition and relied on Supreme Court rulings interpreting similar restrictions under other statutes. They contended that courts must first determine whether a prima facie case attracting the statutory bar exists.
The prosecution and counsel representing the rape survivors opposed the pleas, arguing that the provision was intended to provide stringent protection in specified sexual offences against minors. They submitted that courts could not dilute the legislative mandate by examining broader grounds such as alleged false implication or inconsistencies in statements once the statutory ingredients were established.
Justice Nerlikar referred to SC decisions explaining that restrictions on anticipatory bail do not prevent a court from checking whether the allegations disclose the ingredients necessary to attract the bar.
In the Gadchiroli man’s case, the alleged survivor was 15 years and five months old. She disclosed that the petitioner sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, leading to her pregnancy, and threatened her and her family.
In the Akola man’s case, the alleged survivor was 14 years and four months old. In a supplementary statement, she alleged that the man sexually assaulted her and threatened to circulate obscene photographs and videos if she disclosed the incident.
Finding that the allegations in both cases attracted Section 65(1) of BNS for rape of a minor, the HC held that the bar under BNSS Section 482(4) can be applied and rejected both anticipatory bail applications.
