A ten-year unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justified grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant, Rajani Seth, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 230/2026 registered at Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and filed her first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that in 2016 he entered into an agreement with Rajesh Seth and the applicant for purchase of Flat No. 402, Vinayaka Heights, for ₹30,00,000.

The flat was registered in the complainant’s favour on 18 February 2017, but construction was allegedly not completed within the agreed period.

The complainant subsequently became aware of proceedings by Bank of Baroda concerning the property, alleged irregularities in the documents and building plan, and alleged wrongful disbursement of loan amounts to the builder.

The FIR was registered on 11 July 2026 against the applicant, her husband, and certain bank officials allegedly involved in verification, approval, and disbursement of the loan.

The applicant contended that she was innocent, that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, that there was no dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, and that the FIR had been lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately ten years.

She also relied on the anticipatory bail granted to a co-accused.

The State and the objector opposed the application.

Whether the applicant, accused of offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC in connection with the property and loan transaction, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether the applicant’s status as a woman, the alleged ten-year delay in lodging the FIR, and the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused justified extending similar protection to her?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The accusation was under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC: Section 420 concerns cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property, while Section 34 attributes joint criminal liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

In assessing anticipatory bail, the Court considered the overall facts and circumstances, including the applicant’s status as a woman, the substantial delay in registration of the FIR, and parity with a co-accused already granted anticipatory bail.

No separate judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the transaction originated in 2016–2017, whereas the FIR was registered only on 11 July 2026, resulting in an alleged delay of approximately ten years; the complainant was also stated to have become aware of the relevant proceedings in 2019.

Without undertaking a final determination of the allegations under Sections 420 and 34 IPC, the Court treated the prolonged delay as a significant circumstance favouring protection from arrest.

It further considered that the applicant was a woman and that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court in a connected matter.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant deserved the benefit of anticipatory bail.

The Court directed that, in the event of her arrest, Rajani Seth be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; appearance before the trial Court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar cards and specified photographs of the applicant and sureties; and non-involvement in a similar offence in future.