Anticipatory bail is maintainable post-charge sheet if the accused cooperated during investigation and incarceration is unnecessary.

The applicant, an accountant at M/s Khatwani Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd., sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 72/2021.

The prosecution alleged that the dealership forged vehicle sale invoices and insurance documents to show a later date of sale, thereby avoiding taxes and depriving legal heirs of an accident victim of insurance benefits.

Digital evidence suggested the applicant manipulated records.

While the applicant was not arrested during the investigation and the final report has been filed, he apprehended arrest upon the Magistrate issuing summons for trial.

1. Whether an applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC) when the investigating agency did not deem arrest necessary during the investigation and a charge sheet has already been filed.

2. Whether the gravity of alleged financial manipulation and forgery outweighs the liberty of an accused with no prior criminal antecedents who has cooperated with the investigation.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail.

Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), Aman Preet Singh v. CBI (2021), and Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023), which establish that if an accused was not arrested during the investigation and their presence was not required for custody, incarceration upon the filing of a charge sheet is generally unnecessary for trial.

The court also considered the absence of criminal antecedents as a favorable factor for bail.

The Court observed that the entire prosecution case is based on documentary and digital evidence already seized by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW); thus, there is no risk of the applicant tampering with evidence.

Despite the EOW's opposition regarding the gravity of the forgery, the Court noted that the investigating agency itself did not arrest the applicant during the four-year investigation period.

Applying the Siddharth principle, the Court reasoned that since the applicant cooperated and a final report was filed, his socio-economic status and lack of criminal history suggested he was not a flight risk.

The Court found that custodial interrogation was not required and that unnecessary incarceration would cause social disrepute and prejudice without aiding the trial.

The Court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant not committing similar offences, not tampering with evidence, and complying with Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.