The section that replaced CrPC 438 on 1 July 2024 — and which is not the old Section 482. What the new text quietly dropped, why anticipatory bail normally runs until the end of the trial, the notice route that matters more than bail in a matrimonial case, and how an application is actually filed in Delhi.
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lets a person who has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence apply in advance to the Court of Session or the High Court for a direction that, in the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail. It replaced Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 July 2024.
It is not the old Section 482. The inherent powers of the High Court — the provision used to quash an FIR, which almost every Indian has heard called "482" — are now Section 528 of the BNSS. The two most quoted numbers in Indian criminal practice have changed places, and much of what is written online still has them the wrong way round.
Anticipatory bail is normally not limited in time. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held in Sushila Aggarwal (2020) that protection should not invariably be limited to a fixed period, and that it does not end when the accused is summoned or when charges are framed — it can continue until the end of the trial. A time limit is possible, but exceptional and must be reasoned.
The re-enactment dropped four things that were in CrPC 438: the list of factors the court had to consider, the proviso permitting arrest after rejection, the seven-day notice to the prosecutor and the police, and the requirement that the applicant be present at the final hearing. That last deletion matters a great deal to relatives living outside Delhi who have been named in a Delhi FIR.
In a matrimonial case the more important provision is often not this one at all, but Section 35 of the BNSS — the restrictions on arrest and the notice of appearance — read with the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil (2022).
Start here, because getting this wrong wastes time and sometimes a filing date.
| What you want to do | Old law (till 30 June 2024) | New law (from 1 July 2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Anticipatory bail — protection against arrest | Section 438 CrPC | Section 482 BNSS |
| Quashing an FIR or proceedings — inherent powers of the High Court | Section 482 CrPC | Section 528 BNSS |
| Regular bail in a non-bailable case | Section 437 / 439 CrPC | Section 480 / 483 BNSS |
| Restrictions on arrest, and notice of appearance | Section 41 / 41A CrPC | Section 35 BNSS |
| Registration of an FIR | Section 154 CrPC | Section 173 BNSS |
| Proclamation and attachment | Section 82 / 83 CrPC | Section 84 / 85 BNSS |
The provision applies where a person has reason to believe that they may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. That person may apply to the Court of Session or the High Court for a direction that, in the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail.
Two features define it, and both come from the language rather than from practice.
First, it operates on an apprehension, not on an event. There need not be an FIR. What there must be is a belief founded on facts — the Supreme Court has said the apprehension must be based on reasonable grounds and be capable of being examined objectively, and that a vague fear of being implicated is not enough. If you cannot say which offence you fear being arrested for and why, the application is premature.
Second, the order operates only if and when arrest happens. Anticipatory bail is not a stay on the investigation and it is not immunity. The investigation continues, the charge-sheet is filed, and the case proceeds. What the order does is ensure that you attend it from outside custody.
Where the court is not ready to decide the application straight away, it may pass an interim order protecting the applicant while the application is heard. That interim order is what people usually mean when they say "I got protection". It is not the final order and it can be withdrawn.
Most articles describe Section 482 as "the same as 438". It is substantially the same, but four things were left out of the re-enactment, and each of them has a practical consequence.
| In CrPC 438 | What it did | Status under BNSS 482 |
|---|---|---|
| The clauses in 438(1) | Listed the factors the court had to consider — the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, the likelihood of fleeing, and whether the accusation was made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant | Dropped |
| The proviso to 438(1) | Made clear that where no interim order was passed, or the application was rejected, the police were free to arrest without warrant | Dropped |
| 438(1A) | Required seven days' notice to the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police after an interim order | Dropped |
| 438(1B) | Made the applicant's presence obligatory at the final hearing if the Public Prosecutor asked for it | Dropped |
A High Court has already read the first of these as widening the court's discretion. In Parisha Trivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) the Chhattisgarh High Court noted that Section 482 BNSS deletes the guiding factors that appeared in the old provision — the nature and gravity of the accusation, criminal antecedents and so on — and that the effect is to widen the discretionary powers of the court rather than to narrow them.
Almost every page that mentions the deletions treats them as good news. They are not uniformly good news, and an honest page should say so.
| What it is | Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest — "anticipatory bail" |
| Replaces | Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 |
| In force from | 1 July 2024 |
| Not to be confused with | Section 528 BNSS — the inherent powers of the High Court, which was the old Section 482 CrPC |
| Applies to | Apprehended arrest for a non-bailable offence |
| FIR required? | No — but the apprehension must rest on concrete facts relatable to a specific offence |
| Which court | Court of Session or High Court — concurrent power |
| Duration | Normally until the end of the trial; a time limit only for special reasons |
| Barred for | Offences under Sections 65 and 70(2) of the BNS; and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the UAPA |
| Typical conditions | Available for interrogation when required; no inducement or threat to witnesses; not to leave India without permission |
| Usual companion provision | Section 35 BNSS — restrictions on arrest, and the notice of appearance |
The power is wide but not universal. There are three categories to know about.
| Statute | Position |
|---|---|
| BNSS itself | The section does not apply to the offences under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the BNS — rape of a child, and gang rape where the victim is under eighteen. |
| SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Section 18 excludes anticipatory bail for offences under that Act, and Section 18A reinforces it. This is the most frequently encountered bar in practice. |
| UAPA | Effectively unavailable for the offences to which the restrictive bail provisions apply. |
| NDPS Act | Not barred in terms, but the twin conditions in Section 37 for commercial quantities make it very difficult to obtain. |
For twenty years the received wisdom was that anticipatory bail was a short-term protection that ended when the accused was summoned, or when the charge-sheet was filed, after which they had to surrender and apply for regular bail. That is no longer the law, and it has not been the law since January 2020.
In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court settled the question.
"the protection granted to a person… should not invariably be limited to a fixed period."
"The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial."
The Bench held that nothing in the provision compels a court to impose a time limit, or to make the protection lapse on the filing of an FIR or a charge-sheet. A court may limit the operation of the order — but only where the peculiar features of the case call for it, and with reasons.
The Bench also recognised the idea of limited custody: a court granting anticipatory bail can direct that the accused be available for a period of questioning, so that the investigation is not hampered, without the accused actually being taken into custody.
The BNSS does not disturb any of this. The words the Constitution Bench was construing are the words carried into Section 482, and none of the deleted material was what the duration holding rested on.
| Decision | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), Constitution Bench | The foundational case. The power is not to be read narrowly or hedged with conditions the statute does not contain; the apprehension must be reasonable and based on concrete facts; the section is a facet of personal liberty. |
| Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) | Sets out at length the factors a court should weigh — the nature of the accusation, the role attributed to the applicant, antecedents, the possibility of the applicant fleeing, and whether the accusation has been made to injure or humiliate. Now more important than before, because the statute no longer lists them. |
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), Constitution Bench | Duration — see above. Also that an FIR is not a precondition, and that limited custody may be directed. |
| Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) | Arrest is not automatic in offences punishable up to seven years. Police must record why arrest is necessary; magistrates must record why they authorise detention. The single most useful decision for a person named in a Section 85 FIR. |
| Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) and its follow-up orders | Categorises offences and directs how bail is to be approached in each. Offences punishable with seven years or less fall in the first category, where summons should ordinarily issue before any warrant. |
| Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) | A proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail; appearing through counsel is not appearance. |
| Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023) | Transit anticipatory bail is available even where the FIR is registered outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, subject to conditions. |
The Court of Session and the High Court have concurrent power. There is no statutory requirement to approach the Sessions Court first.
In practice, almost every application begins in the Sessions Court, for three reasons: it is faster to get a date, it is cheaper, and a High Court that is asked to act first will generally want to know why the Sessions Court was bypassed. The Delhi High Court has held that there is no restraint on an applicant approaching it directly. Other benches have emphasised that the hierarchy of courts should ordinarily be respected. Both propositions can be true at once: you may go straight to the High Court, and you will be expected to justify it.
The situations where going straight to the High Court is usually right are narrow — where the Sessions Court has already refused, where the matter genuinely cannot wait, or where the relief sought is bound up with a quashing petition under Section 528. Your advocate will know which applies.
An anticipatory bail application in a Delhi Sessions Court runs, in outline, like this.
| Step | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1. Filing | The application is filed in the Sessions Court of the district in which the police station falls, with the FIR copy if available, the applicant's identity documents, and an affidavit |
| 2. Listing | It is listed before the Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge on roster. Urgent matters can be mentioned |
| 3. Notice | Notice issues to the State through the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the SHO is directed to file a status report |
| 4. Interim protection | The court may pass an interim order protecting the applicant until the next date. This is where the outcome is usually decided in practical terms |
| 5. Status report | The investigating officer files a report setting out the allegations, the stage of investigation, and whether custodial interrogation is said to be required |
| 6. Hearing and order | The application is heard and either allowed with conditions, or dismissed. If dismissed, the High Court is the next step |
| Court complex | Broadly serves |
|---|---|
| Tis Hazari | Central and West Delhi |
| Rohini | North and North-West Delhi |
| Karkardooma | East, North-East and Shahdara |
| Saket | South and South-East Delhi |
| Dwarka | South-West Delhi |
| Patiala House | New Delhi district |
Delhi has more police districts than judicial districts and the boundaries do not map neatly. Confirm the current allocation from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel.
Anticipatory bail applications are refused far more often for what they leave out than for what they say. The material a court expects to see:
An order granting anticipatory bail comes with conditions. Three are standard:
Courts commonly add others — furnishing a personal bond with sureties, not tampering with evidence, not contacting the complainant, and informing the court of any change of address.
A condition of bail must be connected to securing the accused's presence and the integrity of the investigation. Courts have repeatedly set aside conditions that were really something else wearing bail's clothes.
On passports, note that the standard third condition — not leaving India without permission — usually achieves what the prosecution wants without the applicant having to surrender the passport itself.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal and matrimonial matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
For a very large number of people who arrive at this page, the honest answer is that Section 482 may not be the provision you need. In a Section 85 case — cruelty by a husband or his relatives, the old Section 498A — the arrest itself is heavily restricted, and understanding that is usually worth more than an anticipatory bail application.
The relevant figure gives the scale of it: the National Crime Records Bureau's Crime in India report for 2023 records that cases of cruelty by a husband or his relatives were the largest single head of crimes against women, making up close to thirty per cent of all such cases. This is not a rare situation and the courts have built a specific framework for it.
Section 85 carries a maximum of three years. Section 35 of the BNSS restricts arrest in cases punishable with up to seven years: a police officer may arrest only where satisfied that arrest is necessary for one of the specified reasons — to prevent further offence, for proper investigation, to prevent evidence being destroyed, to prevent inducement of witnesses, or to secure presence in court — and must record that satisfaction in writing.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) the Supreme Court directed that police officers not arrest automatically in such cases, that they complete a checklist and forward it to the magistrate, and that magistrates not authorise detention without recording their own satisfaction. It directed departmental action against officers who did not comply. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) the Court reinforced this, placed offences punishable with seven years or less in its first category, and directed that in such cases the ordinary course is a summons, then a bailable warrant, and only then a non-bailable warrant — and that bail can be decided without the accused being taken into physical custody.
On non-compliance with the statutory restrictions on arrest, the Supreme Court said: "Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail."
The Court also identified the Delhi Police standing order on the notice of appearance as a model for other States — so in Delhi, the framework is not merely judicial, it is in the force's own instructions.
Where arrest is not required, the officer issues a notice of appearance directing the person to attend at a stated place and time. The provision then says something important: a person who complies with the notice and continues to comply shall not be arrested unless the officer, for reasons to be recorded, is of the opinion that they ought to be arrested.
So the sequence in an ordinary Section 85 case is:
Arrest is the exception in that sequence, not a stage of it. An anticipatory bail application makes sense where something has gone wrong — the notice was skipped, the officer has said arrest is intended, a non-bailable warrant has issued, or the allegations include a more serious offence.
The BNSS contains a protection that reads as though it were written for exactly this situation: no arrest without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police where the offence is punishable with less than three years and the person is infirm or above sixty.
The difficulty is the wording. Section 85 is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, which on a literal reading is not the same as less than three years. Whether the protection extends to a Section 85 case has not, so far as we have been able to find, been decided either way.
We flag this rather than resolve it, because a page that told you your seventy-year-old mother is protected by that provision, and was wrong, would do real harm. What can be said with confidence is that the general restrictions on arrest in Section 35, the Arnesh Kumar directions and the Satender Kumar Antil categorisation all apply to offences punishable with up to seven years and therefore certainly cover Section 85. Those are the protections to rely on, and an anticipatory bail application is the backstop.
A recurring pattern in matrimonial cases: an FIR is registered in Delhi naming the husband and several of his relatives, some of whom live in another State and have not been to Delhi in years. Travelling to Delhi to file an application, while at risk of arrest at home, is a real problem.
The Supreme Court addressed it in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023), holding that a Sessions Court or High Court can grant limited anticipatory bail — transit anticipatory bail — even where the FIR has been registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, to enable the applicant to approach the court that does have jurisdiction.
It is hedged with conditions, and they matter:
Very few pages on anticipatory bail mention this at all, and for an out-of-state relative it can be the difference between an orderly application and an arrest.
Anticipatory bail is a remedy for a person who is available and cooperating. The further you move from that, the harder it becomes.
| Stage | Effect on an anticipatory bail application |
|---|---|
| Notice under Section 35(3) issued, you attend | Strongest position. Cooperation is your best evidence |
| Notice ignored | Weakens the application considerably; the officer may record reasons and arrest |
| Bailable warrant issued | Still workable, but the court will want an explanation |
| Non-bailable warrant issued | Difficult. Courts are reluctant to grant anticipatory bail where a warrant is outstanding |
| Proclamation under Section 84 BNSS | Ordinarily fatal. In Srikant Upadhyay (2024) the Supreme Court held that a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail, and that appearing through counsel is not appearance |
If your anticipatory bail application was rejected before 1 July 2024 under Section 438 CrPC, that rejection may not be the last word. The Allahabad High Court held in 2025 that the enactment of the BNSS constitutes a fundamental change in the law, that Section 482 omits a restriction which had applied under a State amendment, and that a fresh application may therefore be maintainable notwithstanding the earlier rejection.
That reasoning was developed in the context of a particular State amendment and is a High Court decision rather than a Supreme Court one, so it should be put to your advocate rather than assumed. But if you were refused under the old Code and have been told nothing further can be done, it is worth asking about.
Free legal aid is available under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In Delhi, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority runs legal services clinics in every district court complex, and a helpline on 1516.
Eligibility differs, and it is worth being straightforward about it. A woman is entitled to free legal aid regardless of her income. So are children, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, persons in custody, and persons whose annual income falls below the prescribed limit. A man applying for anticipatory bail generally qualifies only on the income ground. A person already in custody qualifies irrespective of income, which is one reason the front-desk advice at a court complex is worth asking for even if you think you will not qualify.
It is the provision that lets a person who fears arrest in a non-bailable case apply in advance to the Sessions Court or the High Court for a direction that, if arrested, they shall be released on bail. It is what everybody calls anticipatory bail. It replaced Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 July 2024.
That was Section 482 of the old Code — the inherent powers of the High Court. Under the new law those powers are in Section 528 of the BNSS, and Section 482 now means anticipatory bail. The two most quoted section numbers in Indian criminal practice have effectively swapped places, and a great deal of what is written online has not caught up.
Section 438 CrPC. The core of the old section was carried over, but four things were dropped — the list of guiding factors, the proviso about arrest after rejection, the seven-day notice requirement, and the requirement that the applicant be present at the final hearing.
Yes. The power is the same power and the settled case law on it continues to apply. What changed is some of the scaffolding around it, and one of those changes makes the process meaningfully easier for people who live outside Delhi.
No. The apprehension of arrest is what matters, not the paperwork. But the Supreme Court has been clear that the apprehension must be founded on concrete facts relatable to a specific offence — a vague fear of being implicated at some point is not enough to sustain an application.
Both courts have concurrent power, and there is no statutory rule that you must exhaust the Sessions Court first. In practice almost every application starts in the Sessions Court, and a High Court will usually ask why you did not. The Delhi High Court has held that there is no restraint on approaching it first — but expect to have a reason.
Yes, and this is one of the most useful things on this page. In 2023 the Supreme Court held that a court can grant transit anticipatory bail — limited protection to let you approach the court that actually has jurisdiction — even where the FIR was registered in another State. It is conditional and it is short, but it exists.
Ordinarily no. The Supreme Court held in 2024 that a proclaimed offender is not entitled to this relief, and that appearing through a lawyer is not the same as appearing. Once proclamation proceedings have begun, the position becomes very difficult.
Normally until the end of the trial. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held in 2020 that protection under this provision should not invariably be limited to a fixed period, and that it does not end when the accused is summoned or when charges are framed. A court may still impose a time limit, but only for special reasons recorded in the order. Any page telling you it automatically expires when the charge-sheet is filed is quoting law that was overruled.
Typically: that you make yourself available for interrogation as and when required; that you will not induce, threaten or promise anything to any witness; and that you will not leave India without permission. The court may add others. Conditions must be reasonable and connected to the purpose of bail.
Courts have held such conditions to be beyond the scope of bail. In a matrimonial case the Supreme Court has specifically set aside a direction to pay maintenance as a condition of anticipatory bail, holding that it had nothing to do with securing the accused's presence. Maintenance is decided in its own proceeding.
That when the investigating officer calls you, you attend, answer questions and produce what is asked for. It does not mean you must confess or sign anything. Attend with your advocate's advice, keep a record of every date you attended, and never ignore a call — non-cooperation is the most common reason protection is later withdrawn.
Yes. The BNSS itself bars it for the offences under Sections 65 and 70(2) of the BNS. Separate statutes bar or heavily restrict it — most importantly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the UAPA. The NDPS Act does not bar it in terms but imposes conditions that make it very hard to obtain.
Not automatically, and the law is squarely on your side here. Section 85 carries a maximum of three years. For offences punishable up to seven years the police are not supposed to arrest as a matter of course: they must first satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary for one of the reasons the law specifies, record that satisfaction in writing, and ordinarily issue a notice of appearance instead. The Supreme Court laid this down in 2014 and has reinforced it since.
Attend, on the date given, with an advocate's advice. The law says that a person who complies with the notice shall not be arrested unless the officer records reasons for doing so. Complying is your best protection. Ignoring it is what converts a notice into an arrest.
The Supreme Court has held in 2025 that a notice of appearance served by WhatsApp or other electronic means is not valid service. The BNSS expressly permits electronic service for summons and does not do so for this notice, and the omission was treated as deliberate. That said, do not simply ignore a WhatsApp message — take advice, because appearing voluntarily is almost always better than being treated as absconding.
There is a provision requiring the prior permission of a senior officer before arresting a person who is infirm or above sixty in certain cases, but it is worded to cover offences punishable with less than three years, and Section 85 is punishable with up to three. Whether it covers a Section 85 case has not, so far as we can find, been decided. The reliable protections for an elderly relative are the general restrictions on arrest, the 2014 guidelines, and an anticipatory bail application.
That is a decision for an advocate who has read the FIR. Sometimes the right answer is an application straight away; often the better answer is to comply with the notice, cooperate, and apply only if the position changes. Applying unnecessarily can itself create a record you did not need.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what you have received — a notice, an FIR copy, a phone call. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.