Anticipatory bail granted to property broker as prima facie lack of knowledge regarding land title status precludes custodial interrogation.

The applicant, a 32-year-old property broker, filed a first application for anticipatory bail following the registration of Crime No. 21 of 2026 at Police Station Akodiya.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with other brokers, introduced the complainant (Taj Mohammad) to one Ratanlal for a land purchase.

Ratanlal executed a sale deed claiming *Bhumi Swami* (ownership) rights, whereas the land was actually *Seva Bhumi* (service land) granted on a non-transferable lease.

The applicant contended he acted in good faith, as the land records and *Bhu Adhikar Pustika* from 2021–2024 reflected Ratanlal as the owner, and the land had even been used to secure and repay a bank loan.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of his involvement as a broker and the available documentary evidence.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The court examined the requirements for Sections 318(4) [cheating], 316(5) [criminal breach of trust], 61(2)(a) [criminal conspiracy], and 3(5) [common intention] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court relied on the principles that bail should be granted where there is no likelihood of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or where custodial interrogation is unnecessary for the investigation.

The court found *prima facie* merit in the applicant’s argument that he was unaware of the "service land" status, noting that official revenue records for four years and the issuance of a *Bhu Adhikar Pustika* supported the seller's claim of ownership.

The court observed that the applicant did not sign the sale deed as a witness and there was no evidence of him deriving undue benefit.

Given the applicant's clean criminal record, his socio-economic status, and the fact that he is a local property broker with family responsibilities, the court determined he was unlikely to flee or influence witnesses.

Critically, the court held that custodial interrogation was not required as the dispute largely rested on documentary evidence already in the case diary.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The relief is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with evidence/witnesses, and regular attendance during trial.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.