Anticipatory bail granted in paddy shortage case where dispute is predominantly civil and subject to arbitration.

The applicant, the 64-year-old President of the Co-operative Society, Seepat, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 200/2026

The prosecution alleged that 420.39 quintals of paddy and 5,045 bags (bardana) were missing from the society

The FIR was registered on 07.04.2026 for an incident alleged to have occurred between 15.11.2025 and 31.01.2026

The applicant contended that a closure report certificate dated 08.04.2026 from the Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank found no shortages, the dispute was subject to arbitration per the society agreement, and there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita given the nature of the allegations and the profile of the accused

2. Whether the dispute is predominantly civil/contractual in nature, thereby mitigating the necessity of custodial interrogation

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

The substantive offence was registered under Section 316(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), relating to criminal breach of trust

The court also considered Clause 13 of the Society Agreement, which stipulates that disputes are subject to arbitration

the principle that delays in FIR registration can cast doubt on the prosecution's case

The Court observed that the applicant is a woman of advanced age (64 years) with no prior criminal antecedents

It noted the significant delay in lodging the FIR—filed over two months after the alleged period of occurrence—which the prosecution failed to explain

the Court evaluated the defense's evidence of a closure report from the Branch Manager of the relevant bank, which detected no discrepancies in paddy stocks during the period in question

The Court reasoned that since the agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause (Clause 13) and the allegations stemmed from an audit discrepancy, the matter appeared predominantly civil in nature rather than purely criminal

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearances before the trial court, and submission of verified identification (Aadhaar)

The Court specifically grounded its relief on the nature of the offence, the applicant's gender, and the civil nature of the underlying dispute