Court emphasized that the State must provide substantial reasoning for the necessity of custodial interrogation in anticipatory bail applications, particularly when allegations are unclear.

O R D E R

This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 741 of 2025 of Kanjar Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192 and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ' BNS '), which are corresponding to Sections 153 and

505 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had shared a Facebook post and made statements through electronic means with intent to cause alarm to the public and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 353 (1) of BNS . However, the said provision has three sub-clauses, and the FIR is silent as to which sub-clause the allegations would fall. A reading of the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie indicate that any of the sub-clauses would, in fact, be attracted. Of course, that is a matter to be identified during investigation.

6. Since there is doubt as to the specific clause of Section

353 of BNS that the content of the petitioner's social media post would attract, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary.

7. InSushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [ (2020) 5 SCC 1 ], it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.

8. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation.

9. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is necessary. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner and also bearing in mind the statutory provisions, I am of the view that the petitioner can be protected with a pre-arrest order of bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 26.09.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence;

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass