Anticipatory bail denied for non-cooperation and failure to comply with conditional interim protection from the Supreme Court.

The prosecution alleged the petitioner fraudulently obtained ₹20,00,000 from the widow of a Pulwama martyr under the guise of an investment agreement dated 28.11.2018, but instead diverted the funds to a personal account and forged bill books

A Sessions Court previously dismissed his bail application noting non-cooperation

On 24.04.2025, the High Court granted interim protection, which was later withdrawn on 25.08.2025 due to the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the investigation

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s SLP on 16.02.2026 after he failed to comply with conditional interim protection orders

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite a documented history of non-cooperation with investigating agencies and non-compliance with judicial orders.

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessitated by the specific allegations of forgery and the need to recover physical evidence.

The court considered the provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC regarding anticipatory bail in relation to offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC

The court also noted the applicability of Section 467 of the IPC (forgery of valuable security), which carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment

The ruling was guided by the principle that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief contingent upon the accused’s cooperation with the investigation and the gravity of the offence.

Despite multiple opportunities and interim protections granted by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, the petitioner consistently failed to join the investigation or satisfy the conditions imposed

The court emphasized that the Investigating Officer (IO) required custodial interrogation to unearth original forged bill books and obtain voice samples, which the petitioner had effectively scuttled

The court rejected the petitioner's request for adjournment, noting that while three counsel were named in the vakalatnama, none appeared to argue the merits in the second call

The court held that the petitioner’s failure to comply with the orders of even the Supreme Court, combined with the necessity for custodial interrogation to recover forged documents, precluded the grant of bail

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly