Anticipatory bail granted where commercial disputes are criminalised and FIR is filed after inordinate delay.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 92/2026 involving alleged financial fraud and forgery related to the purchase of a JCB vehicle.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant facilitated a transaction between a complainant and a third party, received substantial funds via RTGS, but failed to clear the vehicle's finance loan or transfer ownership, using forged documents in the process.

The applicant contended that the dispute was purely civil, that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained six-month delay (incident occurred on 05.06.2025), and that a co-accused had already been granted bail.

The State opposed the application, noting the applicant had one criminal antecedent from 2016.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the procedural history of the case?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the statutory framework for the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The court also considered the substantive offences charged under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 318(4) (cheating), 336(3) (forgery), 338 (forgery of valuable security), 340(2) (using forged document as genuine), and 3(5) (joint liability).

The Court's reasoning focused on the balance between the nature of the allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation. It observed that the investigation and subsequent trial were likely to be protracted.

The Court took significant note of the applicant’s argument regarding the inordinate delay of six months in filing the FIR, which the applicant characterized as an "afterthought" to criminalize a civil monetary dispute.

The Court factored in the principle of parity, as the co-accused (Baba Khan) had already been granted bail.

Despite the State’s objection regarding a decade-old criminal antecedent, the Court found that the circumstances—including the applicant’s permanent residency and undertaking to comply with conditions—merited the protection of his liberty pending trial.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not influence witnesses, must not prejudice the trial, must appear before the trial court on every scheduled date, must provide verified identification (Aadhaar), and must not commit similar offences in the future.