Anticipatory bail remains valid even after the addition of new offences to an FIR; police custody cannot be granted while it subsists, unless the bail is formally cancelled by the court based on established legal grounds or violation of conditions.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026 PASSED IN CRIME NO. 261/2026 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 313, 316, 318, 322, 111, 112, 113, 334, 335, 336, 334, 61, 3(5) ALONG WITH RERA ACT, PMLA ACT, BUDS ACT, KPID ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, accused in Crime No.261 of 2025, is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 09-04-2026 granting police custody of the accused for a period of 14 days, in the teeth of the subsistence of anticipatory bail.

2. Heard Smt Harshitha, learned counsel along with Sri Paramesh Kumar H.K, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent before the jurisdictional police on 25-11-2025, which becomes a crime in Crime No.261 of 2025 for offences punishable under Sections 149 and 420 of the IPC. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approaches the concerned Court i.e., Court of Sessions in Crl.Misc.No.9878 of 2025 seeking anticipatory bail. The concerned Court, by a detailed order dated 16-12-2025 grants anticipatory bail, narrating the complete facts that are obtaining towards registration of the complaint , which narrated offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS. The concerned Court observes, that no case is yet registered against the petitioner, though the case had already been registered in Crime No.261 of 2025, but grants anticipatory bail by the following order:

“…. …. ….

11. It is true that no any case is registered against the Petitioners on the alleged apprehension expressed by Petitioners in the petition averments. The registration of FIR is not a condition precedent while considering the anticipatory bail petition. While considering the anticipatory bail petition, the only requirement is that Petitioners must make out a case of reasonable apprehension of being arrested in the case. In the decision reported (1980) 2 S.C.C. page No.565 (Gurubhaksh Singh Sibbia & Others Vs State of Punjab), it has been observed and held that the filing of an F.I.R. is not condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section of 438 of Cr.P.C. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the reported decision in (2011) 1 S.C.C page No.694 (Siddaram Sathlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra & others) In the present case, the prosecution has stated in the objections that another case was registered against the Petitioners in J.P. Nagar Police Station and the Petitioners have cheated the general public. The said apprehension in view of the above stated facts cannot be said as unreasonable. Therefore, under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Petitioner have made out sufficient ground of reasonable apprehension of being arrested and as such, the Petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. Consequently, point No.1 for determination is answered in the Affirmative.

12. Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition filed by Petitioners under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is hereby allowed.

The Petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent-Police Station Bengaluru, on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-each with one surety for the like-sum amount, subject to following conditions ;

1. The Petitioners shall a