Anticipatory Bail Denied to Absconding Accused Involved in Large-Scale Financial Forgery and Misappropriation.

The applicant, Mamta Pathak, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 404/2025 involving alleged financial embezzlement of over ₹7 crores from Shree Jee Infrastructure India Private Limited

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Atul Pathak, forged signatures and documents to divert company funds into the bank accounts of his relatives, including ₹37,17,315/- into the applicant’s account

The applicant contended that the funds were deposited by company directors to evade tax by naming her as a "sub-contractor" and claimed parity with a co-accused granted regular bail

However, the State and objector opposed the plea, noting that the applicant was absconding, a reward was declared for her arrest, and the diverted funds were allegedly used to purchase immovable properties

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite allegations of a large-scale economic offence and her status as an absconder?

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to an applicant seeking anticipatory bail when the co-accused was granted regular bail after a period of incarceration?

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding anticipatory bail

It relied on the established legal principle that the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is generally unavailable to an accused who is absconding or evading the legal process

Furthermore, it distinguished the considerations for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS from those of anticipatory bail, noting that submitting to the jurisdiction of the court (custody) is a distinct factor

Relevant penal provisions cited included Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Sections 61(2), 66(C), and 68(D) of the IT Act

The court reasoned that the investigation revealed the applicant’s active involvement, specifically the receipt of ₹36,59,836/- [sic - para. 8 states this figure while para. 5 mentions ₹37,17,315/-] in her account without legitimate business justification

The court rejected the plea of parity, holding that the co-accused, Kashi Prasad Pathak, was granted regular bail only after being in judicial custody since 2025, whereas the applicant had deliberately avoided arrest

Regarding the applicant's medical conditions (diabetes and hypertension), the court found these insufficient for bail in a serious economic offence, as treatment is available in custody

The court emphasized that a well-planned scheme involving forgery and misappropriation of company funds necessitates custodial interrogation to trace the proceeds of crime and identify beneficiaries

It held that given the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial loss (over ₹7 crores), and the evidence of forged documents used for illegal transactions, the applicant was not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The court concluded that custodial interrogation was essential to prevent the dissipation of assets and to complete the investigation into the flow of funds