Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS

Section 482(1) of the BNSS allows any person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or the Court of Session. The court may direct that, in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail.

The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab held that the belief must rest on specific facts, and the section cannot be invoked on vague and general allegations. An FIR is not a condition precedent, and relief can be granted after an FIR so long as the applicant has not been arrested. After arrest, the remedy is regular bail under Section 480 or Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC).

In Sumit v. State of U.P. (2026), the Supreme Court restated that anticipatory bail may be granted even after a charge sheet is filed or cognizance is taken.

Section 482(1) gives the power to both the High Court and the Court of Session. Sibbia held that whichever of these courts is approached must apply its own mind and decide whether a case for relief is made out. It cannot leave the question to the Magistrate to decide later under the regular bail provision.

Whether an applicant should ordinarily go to the Sessions Court first is a question of practice; check the current position in the Madras High Court before filing.

Section 482(2) lets the court attach conditions suited to the facts, including these:

In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), a five-judge bench held that protection should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. The order does not end when the accused is summoned or charges are framed, and it can continue till the end of the trial. Where a case has special features, the court may limit the tenure or tie it to an event.

The same bench overruled Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, which had read the power restrictively, and overruled Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre to the extent that it held no conditions can be imposed. In Sumit (2026) the Supreme Court applied it and said there was no good reason to restrict anticipatory bail to the filing of the charge sheet.

Under Section 482(3), a person holding a direction who is later arrested without warrant must be released if he is prepared to give bail, and a Magistrate taking cognizance can issue only a bailable warrant.

In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), the Supreme Court said that applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within six weeks, except where there is an intervening application.

Section 438(1) of the CrPC expressly allowed an interim order, and Section 438(1A) required at least seven days' notice of it to the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police. Section 482 of the BNSS does not contain those sub-sections, so the basis for interim protection under the new Code should be checked for each case.

In Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani (2024), the Supreme Court rejected a practice of giving investigating officers liberty to seek police custody remand of a person after anticipatory bail had been granted. It held that neither Section 438 of the CrPC nor Section 482 of the BNSS contemplates such liberty, though the court may restrict the tenure and impose conditions in line with Sushila Aggarwal.

Section 482(4) of the BNSS says the section does not apply to an arrest on accusation of an offence under Section 65 or Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 65 punishes rape of a woman under sixteen years of age and under twelve years of age. Section 70(2) punishes gang rape of a woman under eighteen years of age. Section 438(4) of the CrPC had the same bar for IPC Sections 376(3), 376AB, 376DA and 376DB.

For offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India held that Section 438 of the CrPC does not apply. If the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under that Act, the bar in Sections 18 and 18A does not apply. Other special statutes have their own bail rules, which should be checked separately.

Sushila Aggarwal, following Sibbia, said the application should be based on concrete facts relatable to a specific offence. It should contain the bare essential facts of the offence and explain why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest. A practical file usually holds: