Anticipatory bail granted where FIR delay exists and no financial benefit is traced to the accused.

The applicant, a former Business Development Manager at HDFC Bokaro, sought anticipatory bail regarding allegations of criminal conspiracy and the fraudulent withdrawal of a fake death claim amounting to Rs. 1.19 crores related to HDFC Pension Fund Management Limited.

The prosecution alleged the applicant and co-accused submitted fabricated documents, including a death certificate for an individual, Umesh Avdhiya, who was subsequently found to be alive.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, noted a seven-month delay in filing the FIR, and asserted that his job profile did not include document verification or authorization.

It was further noted by the State that no funds were transferred into the applicant's personal bank account.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

The substantive charges were registered under Sections 3(5), 316, 318, 336(2), 337, 338, 339, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which encompass criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—involving a fraudulent insurance claim of ₹1.29 crores using fabricated death certificates—against the specific role and benefits attributed to the applicant.

The Court took significant note of the applicant’s defense that his professional duties did not involve the verification of the disputed documents and that he had since received a clean experience letter from the company.

Critically, the Court highlighted that the State counsel did not dispute the fact that no portion of the allegedly defrauded amount was received in the applicant’s bank account.

Furthermore, the court considered the unexplained seven-month delay in lodging the FIR as a factor favoring the applicant.

It held that despite the allegations of conspiracy, the lack of monetary trail to the applicant and the procedural delay justified his release in the event of arrest.

The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular court attendance, and a prohibition against committing similar future offenses.