Anticipatory bail granted to female family members of co-accused following sustained cooperation and parity in investigation.

Five female applicants, who are members of the immediate family of co-accused Arun Gautam (sisters, mother, and wife), sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 320/2023

The case involves a dispute over an immovable property originally owned by Smt. Rajkumari. A co-accused, Sonia Jain, allegedly forged a Sale Deed dated 08.04.2022 to claim ownership

The specific allegation against the present applicants is that they received money from Sonia Jain via Arun Gautam to vacate the subject property

All other primary accused persons, including Sonia Jain and Arun Gautam, had already been granted bail

The applicants had consistently joined the police investigation

1. Whether the applicants—being female family members of a co-accused already on bail—are entitled to anticipatory bail given their cooperation with the investigation and the nature of the allegations against them

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC

The court emphasized judicial discretion in matters of personal liberty, the relevance of the accused's gender (proviso to bail provisions), the parity principle where co-accused have been granted bail, and the requirement of the accused to join the investigation as a condition for relief

The Court's reasoning centered on the "overall circumstances" of the case and the status of the investigation

Firstly, the court noted the State’s lack of opposition to the bail applications, specifically observing that the applicants are women and the "immediate family" of Arun Gautam, who is already at liberty

Secondly, the court highlighted that the applicants had been "joining the investigation," suggesting there was no immediate need for custodial interrogation

Thirdly, the court considered the principle of parity, noting that the main alleged conspirator (Sonia Jain), who was accused of the primary act of forgery, had already been released

Consequently, there was no justifiable reason to deprive the applicants of their liberty

It directed that in the event of arrest, each applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO

The relief was made subject to the condition that the applicants must join the investigation whenever directed by the IO in writing