Anticipatory bail granted to co-accused relatives absent evidence of financial benefit or active participation in the alleged fraud.

The accused/applicants sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 122/2023, involving allegations of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Gopal Saha, cheated the complainant of approximately Rs. 41,00,000/- by promising a job and visa in Canada

The applicants, Raghunath Saha (Gopal’s brother-in-law) and Boni Saha (Gopal’s niece), were allegedly introduced as influential persons with links to the Canadian High Commission to facilitate the fraud

Boni Saha had been under interim protection since July 2025, while Raghunath Saha had not

The defense contended that Boni was only 17 at the time of the offence, no money was received by the applicants, and they were roped in merely to pressure Gopal Saha, who had already been granted bail by the trial court

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature of their involvement and the evidence available

2. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the applicants beyond the statements of the complainant

The court considered the statutory provisions for cheating (Section 420 IPC), forgery (Sections 468 and 471 IPC), and common intention (Section 34 IPC)

The court applied the legal principle that anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations appear to be an attempt to exert collateral pressure ("arm-twisting") on the primary accused through relatives, and where the prosecution fails to present corroborative evidence to justify custodial interrogation

The court observed that the primary allegations of inducement and collection of money were directed at the main accused, Gopal Saha

Regarding Boni Saha, the court noted her age (17 years) at the time of the offence made the allegation of her being a High Commission employee improbable

As for Raghunath Saha, the court scrutinized the IO's evidence regarding a purported UPI payment of Rs. 4,000/- from a victim named Deepak; however, it found that Deepak’s statement did not mention paying the applicants, and the IO failed to properly document or verify the bank statements

The court concluded that apart from the "bald statement" of the complainant, there was no evidence linking the applicants to the crime, suggesting they were likely joined to pressure the main accused

It held that there was no substantive reason to deny liberty to the applicants given the lack of evidence

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each, subject to the condition that they join the investigation as and when directed in writing