Notice or arrest
Not every FIR leads to an arrest. Section 35 BNSS, carrying forward the position the Supreme Court set out in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, requires the police to record reasons before arresting a person in an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, and ordinarily to issue a notice of appearance instead. A person who receives such a notice should attend and cooperate with the investigation; ignoring it is one of the more common reasons an otherwise avoidable arrest happens.
Timing an anticipatory bail application
An anticipatory bail application can be filed before an FIR is registered, once there is a credible apprehension of arrest, or after registration but before arrest. The application is usually decided on the seriousness of the allegation, the applicant's conduct including willingness to join investigation, and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Interim protection is frequently granted at the first hearing pending a fuller order, so the quality of the initial application matters more than clients sometimes expect.
When quashing is realistic
A petition to quash under Section 528 BNSS is not a substitute for a trial on the merits, and the High Court applies the restraint set out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which lists the categories of case in which quashing is appropriate, chiefly where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not disclose an offence, or where the proceeding is shown to be malicious. Separately, in matters that are essentially private in nature, the High Court retains a discretion recognised in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 to quash proceedings on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties, though this is applied more cautiously in offences that also carry a public element.
Building the trial defence
Once a chargesheet is filed and charges are framed, the case turns on evidence: the consistency of witness statements, the chain of custody of any physical or documentary evidence, and whether the procedure the investigating agency followed complied with the law. Cross-examination is prepared from the papers well before the hearing, and inconsistencies between an early statement and later testimony are often where a case is genuinely won or lost, rather than in closing argument.
