Anticipatory bail granted considering advanced age and medically supported ailments, without commenting on merits.

The applicant, a 71-year-old Director of M/s Dhamtari Kpex Pvt. Ltd., sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. RC0732026E0012/2024 registered by the CBI, Kolkata, for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 409, 477A and 120B of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and other accused persons fraudulently obtained credit facilities of approximately ₹15 crores from Union Bank of India and diverted the funds to sister concerns, causing wrongful loss to the bank; the loan account was declared NPA with an outstanding liability of approximately ₹11.38 crores.

The applicant claimed that she had been induced by co-accused persons, that her signatures had been obtained on blank papers, and that she had complained to the police and bank after learning of the alleged fraud. She also relied on her age and medical condition and stated that she had obtained interim bail by an earlier order dated 17.08.2026.

The CBI opposed the application on the ground that, as a Director, she had connived in obtaining and diverting the credit facilities.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

In exercising this discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the circumstances of the dispute, and the applicant’s personal and medical circumstances.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant, as a Director, had acted in connivance with the co-accused to fraudulently obtain ₹15 crores in credit facilities and divert the funds to sister concerns.

However, while assessing the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, it gave substantial weight to the applicant’s age of 71 years and her recent medical ailments, which were supported by a medical report.

Without making any definitive finding on whether she was involved in the alleged fraud, the Court concluded that these circumstances justified protection from arrest. The applicant’s prior complaints and reliance on interim bail were also part of the submissions considered by the Court.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting intimidation or inducement of witnesses, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, non-appearance before the trial court, submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents, and involvement in offences of a similar nature.