Anticipatory bail granted where property-purchase allegations lacked documents and appeared rooted in a loan dispute.

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after the Sessions Court dismissed their applications.

The FIR alleged that they induced the complainant and her husband to pay Rs.1,04,00,000 between October 2025 and March 2026 for property that was never provided, and later intimidated them when repayment was sought.

The petitioners maintained that the money was a business loan and that the complaint gave a civil dispute a criminal character; the State and complainant opposed bail, alleging similar conduct and referring to another FIR.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in Crime No. 81/2026, registered for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. Whether anticipatory bail could be granted subject to conditions requiring the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and comply with court appearances.

The Court considered the petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for a direction granting bail to a person apprehending arrest.

It noted that the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment.

The order cites no judicial precedents; the Court’s stated basis for relief was its assessment of the allegations and the petitioners’ undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

The Court noted that the first information did not refer to an agreement for the purchase of property, and the complainant’s objections were unsupported by documents showing that the money had been paid for that purpose.

In those circumstances, the Court found force in the petitioners’ position that the amount had been advanced as a business loan and that the complaint followed from its non-repayment.

Although a later FIR contained similar allegations, the Court also considered the nature and punishment of the offences and the petitioners’ willingness to cooperate with the police.

Each petitioner was required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days of receiving the order and execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

They were also directed to attend court unless exempted, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, cooperate with the investigation, appear when called, and not engage in similar offences in future.