Anticipatory bail is denied to an absconding accused in a multi-crore corporate embezzlement and money-laundering conspiracy.

The applicant, Nisha Pathak, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 404/2025 involving allegations of a large-scale economic fraud amounting to approximately ₹7.11 crores

The prosecution alleged that the principal accused, Atul Pathak (the applicant’s husband), forged signatures of the Director of Shree Jee Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. to issue cheques and link his mobile number to company accounts, subsequently diverting funds into the accounts of his relatives

Investigation revealed that ₹3,81,19,058/- was credited to the applicant’s account, of which she withdrew nearly the entire amount

The applicant contended she was falsely implicated, claiming the company used her account as a "sub-contractor" for GST evasion and tax planning, and that she acted solely on company instructions

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail

the settled legal principle that the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail is typically unavailable to an accused who is absconding or evading the process of law

The court distinguished between the considerations for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS and anticipatory bail, noting that submitting to the jurisdiction of the court is a vital factor in the former

The court found the prosecution's evidence compelling, noting that bank records and a Special Purpose Examination Report prima facie established the diversion of ₹36,59,836/- directly into the applicant's account with no legitimate commercial basis

The court rejected the applicant's plea of parity with co-accused Kashi Prasad Pathak, noting that he had remained in judicial custody for months before receiving regular bail, whereas the applicant had been evading arrest and had a reward declared for her apprehension

The court emphasized that the gravity of the organized financial fraud, involving forgery and criminal conspiracy, necessitated custodial interrogation to trace the complete money trail and recover the proceeds of crime

It held that the applicant’s personal circumstances (being a mother of minors) did not outweigh the seriousness of the economic offense

It held that given the applicant's alleged active role in the embezzlement of over ₹7 crores and the necessity for the investigating agency to confront her with documentary and electronic evidence, no exceptional ground for relief existed