### Anticipatory bail denied where applicant of similar criminal antecedents fails to negate elements of cheating.

The applicants (father and son) allegedly used OLX to offer a vehicle (Reg No. OD-02-CE-5228) for sale to complainant Harpreet Singh.

The complainant transferred ₹7,50,000 via RTGS to the account of applicant No. 2, but the applicants failed to transfer the vehicle or documents, eventually selling it to a third party and returning only ₹50,000.

A similar allegation was made regarding another individual, Sajjat Akhtar Ansari, who paid ₹2,70,000 for a Swift vehicle.

The applicants filed for first anticipatory bail, contending the matter was a commercial dispute, part-payment had been returned, and the FIR was delayed by eight months.

The State opposed the application, citing six criminal antecedents against the applicants.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of allegations and their criminal history.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), which governs the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail to persons apprehending arrest.

It further applied the principle that the presence of criminal antecedents, particularly those of a similar nature, serves as a significant factor in weighing the discretion to grant anticipatory relief against the need for custodial investigation and the protection of public interest.

The specific offences charged were Section 318(4) (Cheating) and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations, noting that the applicants ostensibly operated a pattern of inducing prospective purchasers via online platforms to obtain money without delivering consideration.

Although the applicants argued the transactions were consensual business dealings and the delay in FIR was an afterthought, the Court prioritized the State's submission regarding the applicants' conduct.

Specifically, the Court observed that Applicant No. 1 and 2 had six previous criminal antecedents, two of which involved offences of a similar nature to the present case.

This suggested a propensity for recidivism and undermined the applicants' claim of innocence or commercial "bona fides."

Consequently, the Court found the material in the case diary and the criminal history sufficient to disqualify the applicants from discretionary relief.

The Court held that given the allegations of online fraud and the applicants' prior criminal records, the request for anticipatory bail could not be granted.

The Office was directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court for compliance.