They really got their concepts mixed up. And they don't even try to research the bare minimum. Anticipatory bail is granted before arrest on application by the accused apprehending the arrest. These guys were arrested already. And accused can be held in custody for 60-90 days atleast, even for bailable offences, while the investigation is ongoing and chargesheet is filed. They had enough evidence already to file a chargesheet within 24 hours so didn't even need to ask for extention of that period under S.167. Rape is a non bailable offence and police already had enough evidence to not release them on bail.
Non bailable offence doesn't mean never granting bail, but just that it's the discretion of the police and court, while for bailable, it's mandatory to grant bail.
The Magistrate would never do that either, especially on getting information about victim intimidation. Even if it's discretionary, didn't the police assure them they would help them?
I actually have an exam and just wanted to revise my concepts. But yes, they really need to Google once before they bring anything technical. It can also misguide and scare the general audience
43