Anticipatory bail is denied where the accused absconds, evades investigation, and custodial interrogation is imperative.

The applicant, Rajesh Namdev, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 345/2015 registered at Police Station Morwa, District Singrauli, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, through his fifth application. His earlier applications had been withdrawn, dismissed for want of prosecution, dismissed on merits, or withdrawn

The prosecution alleged that, while serving as Patwari, the applicant manipulated and fabricated revenue records concerning Government land comprised in Khasra No. 356. It was alleged that he created Khasra No. 356/4, measuring 4.470 hectares, and recorded it in favour of Gonabai, widow of Baijnath Bhurtiya, thereby conferring an illegal benefit upon her

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated after lodging a complaint against the then SDM, G.P. Agrawal, alleging demand of illegal gratification. He relied upon revenue records and an earlier enquiry report which, according to him, exonerated him

The State relied upon a subsequent four-member committee enquiry, which found multiple interpolations in revenue records, including the disputed entry, and stated that the entry had been made through the applicant’s online revenue-record user ID

The State further alleged that the applicant had absconded after registration of the FIR, had not cooperated with the investigation, and, after being apprehended on 28 August 2026, escaped from police custody through a hospital bathroom. A separate case under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was registered in that regard

The investigation in the present case remained pending

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations of forgery and manipulation of public revenue records?

Whether the applicant’s alleged non-cooperation, abscondence and escape from police custody justified custodial interrogation and disentitled him from the exceptional relief of anticipatory bail?

Whether the fifth anticipatory-bail application disclosed any changed or exceptional circumstance warranting reconsideration of the earlier order dismissing bail on merits?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail

The substantive accusations arose under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, concerning cheating, forgery of valuable or official records, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and use of forged documents as genuine

The Court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is an exceptional and discretionary relief, particularly where the case diary discloses prima-facie complicity, the investigation is incomplete, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the method and extent of the alleged forgery

It also treated deliberate non-cooperation, abscondence and escape from custody as relevant conduct weighing against the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant

The Court found that the case diary prima facie connected the applicant with the alleged manipulation because the disputed revenue entry was recorded through his official online user ID, and the four-member committee had reported multiple interpolations in the revenue records

The Court considered the applicant’s conduct—his alleged abscondence, failure to cooperate with the investigation and escape from police custody—as demonstrating disregard for the criminal justice process

Since the investigation was still in progress and custodial interrogation was considered necessary to ascertain the manner and modus operandi of the alleged interpolation, the Court held that the requirements for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied

The applicant’s reliance on the earlier exonerating enquiry and his allegation of mala fide prosecution did not establish a sufficient changed circumstance to overturn the previous dismissal on merits

The fifth anticipatory-bail application was consequently dismissed, and no protection from arrest was granted