Absence of Cooperation and Need to Unearth Multi-Layered Forgery Justify Refusal of Anticipatory Bail

The Petitioner, Ganesh Prabhu, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 453/2023 at PS Lajpat Nagar for alleged offenses involving forged bank guarantees.

In 2019-20, the complainant was awarded contracts by UP Jal Nigam and required bank guarantees as security.

The Petitioner, representing a private limited company, offered to arrange these guarantees from Indian Overseas Bank for a 10% service fee.

The complainant paid the Petitioner ₹55,80,610/- for nine bank guarantees, which were later discovered by UP Jal Nigam to be fake and forged.

On 26.07.2024, a predecessor bench granted the Petitioner interim protection from arrest subject to joining the investigation.

However, the State contended that the Petitioner failed to join the investigation until December 2025 and thereafter ceased cooperation.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation and the nature of the offenses.

The court's decision was based on Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief, the grant of which depends on the nature and gravity of the offense, the conduct of the applicant regarding the investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover the mechanics of a complex fraud.

The Court observed that while the Petitioner claimed to have joined the investigation, the State demonstrated through previous orders that the Petitioner had consistently evaded process and failed to join the investigation regularly despite interim protection granted in July 2024.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s defense that he was a victim of a separate dispute regarding furnace oil, noting that such a dispute between co-accused had no bearing on the forgery of bank guarantees delivered to the complainant.

The Court emphasized that because the investigation remains pending and involves the forgery of sensitive financial documents, custodial interrogation is essential to "unearth the manner in which the forgery of bank guarantees was carried out".

The anticipatory bail application and all pending applications were dismissed.

The Court directed the Petitioner to surrender before the IO/SHO concerned within three days.