Anticipatory bail is unwarranted where custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate substantial disputed financial transactions.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 173 dated 12.08.2026, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), corresponding to Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.

The complainant, proprietor of “Nikku Jewelers”, alleged that the petitioner, a jewellery dealer operating as “Kewal Krishna and Sons”, introduced him to “Kartik Gold” and provided its bank-account details for payment towards the purchase of silver. Although the complainant transferred substantial amounts, silver allegedly worth approximately ₹50 lakhs was not supplied.

During the preliminary inquiry, Ravinder Kumar, proprietor of Kartik Gold, stated that he had supplied gold and silver to the petitioner against the amounts deposited by the complainant and that the petitioner had undertaken to deliver the goods to the complainant. The petitioner, however, claimed that his role was limited to introducing the parties and denied responsibility for the subsequent non-supply.

The petitioner relied on a handwritten note showing a transaction for 125 kilograms of silver, with a total stated consideration of ₹2,23,15,000, of which ₹1,11,29,000 had been paid through RTGS. The note also recorded that 36.662 kilograms had been supplied and 88.338 kilograms remained outstanding.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., which confers discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail where the circumstances justify pre-arrest protection.

The Court also considered the allegations under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, corresponding to the offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

In exercising anticipatory-bail jurisdiction, the Court assessed the seriousness and magnitude of the allegations, the material emerging during inquiry, the need for effective investigation, and whether custodial interrogation could reasonably be required; anticipatory bail may be declined where pre-arrest protection is likely to impede a fair investigation.

The Court held that the petitioner’s version—that the dispute arose merely from a fall in the market price of silver and that the rate had been uniformly fixed at ₹1,78,000 per kilogram—was not prima facie supported by the handwritten note.

The note recorded different rates for different quantities and showed that only 36.662 kilograms had been supplied against the alleged 125-kilogram transaction, leaving 88.338 kilograms outstanding.

The substantial amount transferred through banking channels, the large quantity of precious metal allegedly undelivered, and the conflicting statements of the complainant, the proprietor of Kartik Gold, and the petitioner raised material factual questions concerning the flow of funds, delivery particulars, agreed rates, and the petitioner’s precise role.

In these circumstances, the Court found that custodial interrogation could be necessary for verification and confrontation regarding bank records, accounts, delivery documents, and other relevant material. Granting anticipatory bail at that stage could therefore impede a fair and effective investigation.

Given the substantial monetary stakes, alleged non-delivery of silver, disputed transaction terms, material emerging from the handwritten note, and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the petition was dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.