Anticipatory bail remains available after charge-sheet and cognizance where a genuine apprehension of arrest persists.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is available where the applicant shows a reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and that apprehension is not extinguished merely because the charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken. Applying that principle, the Court noted that the dispute arose from an online news report and tweet, the applicant had corrected the error, had expressed willingness to cooperate, and investigation was already complete. On the material before it, the Court found a genuine apprehension of arrest and rejected the objection that the filing of the charge-sheet barred relief. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the FIR and ensuing proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that anticipatory bail is attracted when a person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest on accusation of a non-bailable offence. It considered that the application could be entertained even after filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, since such stages do not extinguish the apprehension of arrest. The Court further noted that the dispute arose from an online news report and tweet, that the applicant had corrected the error and expressed willingness to cooperate, and that the prosecution had already completed investigation. On the material before it, the Court found a genuine apprehension of arrest and no merit in the objection that filing of the charge-sheet barred relief.

Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was allowed and protection against arrest was granted, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

---