High Court Ruling: Anticipatory Bail Under Section 482 BNSS Not Absolute in Minor Rape Cases

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the restriction on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in specific rape cases involving minors is not absolute. This decision comes as a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding anticipatory bail in sensitive cases.

Understanding Section 482 BNSS and Its Implications

Section 482 BNSS limits the provision of anticipatory bail for offences specified under Sections 65 and 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023. Section 65 of BNS addresses the rape of minors under the age of 12 years, while Section 70(2) penalises gang rape involving minors.

Justice Sumeet Goel emphasised that while a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 482 BNSS is permissible, it is subject to stringent judicial scrutiny. The court can grant anticipatory bail only when the case does not present a prima facie offence, appears to be motivated, or where not granting bail would result in a miscarriage of justice or abuse of the legal process.

Judicial Approach to Anticipatory Bail in Sensitive Cases

Justice Goel underscored that the judicial approach to anticipatory bail must be cautious, given the gravity of offences involving minors. Each case has unique circumstances that affect the decision, making it impractical to establish a fixed set of criteria for all cases. The court's assessment depends on the factual matrix of each case.

Case Background: FIR No.203 and Allegations

The court's observations stemmed from a plea for anticipatory bail in FIR No.203, dated July 13, 2024. This FIR involves allegations of repeated rape of a 15-year-old girl by a man who allegedly threatened her to keep silent. The petitioner, accused in this case, claims he was falsely implicated and was actually a protector of the victim from other boys.


Arguments and Court’s Deliberation

The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, asserting false implication and claiming that the petitioner had intervened to protect the victim. Conversely, the State Counsel contended that anticipatory bail is barred by Section 482(4) of BNSS 2023, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

Justice Goel reviewed the legal provisions and the intent behind them, noting that provisions under Sections 376(3), 376AB, 376DA, and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were introduced to safeguard children and underscore the severity of sexual offences. The intent is to protect minors and ensure a safe environment for their growth.

The Court’s Perspective on Anticipatory Bail

Justice Goel highlighted that the denial of anticipatory bail impacts individual liberty, a core value in the judicial system. He noted that bail should not be refused arbitrarily but should be considered carefully, weighing the implications for both the individual and society.

Cautionary Note on Anticipatory Bail

The court cautioned that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 is only available if the applicant can demonstrate that no prima facie case exists. The decision to grant such bail must be supported by cogent reasons and thorough judicial analysis.

In the present case, Justice Goel found the petitioner’s claims of false implication unconvincing. The court noted that there was insufficient basis to support the petitioner’s allegations of false implication or monetary disputes influencing the case.

Conclusion: Custodial Interrogation Deemed Necessary

Given the serious nature of the accusations involving a minor, Justice Goel concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for a thorough investigation. Consequently, the plea for anticipatory bail was rejected, reinforcing the need for a careful and balanced approach to such sensitive matters.


This ruling emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of anticipatory bail provisions in cases involving minors and underscores the importance of safeguarding the judicial process while addressing severe allegations.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post