Anticipatory bail may be denied when ongoing investigation requires custodial interrogation and co-accused remain unarrested.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 179 dated 10 April 2025, registered at Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad, for offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC, corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced, pursuant to a conspiracy involving the petitioner and other accused, to invest in M/s One to Five Investment and Credit Company Private Limited.

The petitioner contended that ₹10,00,000 was credited to his account, out of which ₹9,70,000 was immediately transferred onward and only ₹30,000 remained with him; he further asserted that the disputed amount had been repaid and that the dispute was essentially civil or commercial.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had received his share of ₹30,000, that the other accused had not yet been arrested, and that the investigation remained pending.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, the financial transaction, and the pending investigation.

2. Whether the transfer of most of the amount received in the petitioner’s account, repayment of the disputed amount, and the alleged civil/commercial nature of the dispute were sufficient to negate the petitioner’s prima facie involvement and obviate custodial interrogation.

3. Whether anticipatory bail at the stage when the co-accused remained unarrested would impede a fair and effective investigation.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 IPC, corresponding to Sections 61(2), 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS.

The governing principles applied were that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and discretionary relief; the Court must assess prima facie involvement, the stage and requirements of investigation, the possibility and necessity of custodial interrogation, and whether pre-arrest protection may prejudice the investigation.

The Court further applied the principle that the transfer or repayment of disputed funds does not, by itself, conclusively establish innocence at the anticipatory-bail stage, particularly where the source, destination, knowledge and role of the accused require investigation.

The Court found that the material on record prima facie indicated the petitioner’s association with the co-accused and involvement in the financial transaction, particularly because he allegedly received ₹30,000 as his share from funds routed through his account.

The onward transfer of ₹9,70,000 did not exonerate him, since the complete financial trail and his precise role and knowledge remained matters for investigation.

As the co-accused had not yet been arrested, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner could not be ruled out; it could assist in determining the nature of his association, the handling of the funds, and the role of other persons.

Grant of anticipatory bail at that stage could impede investigation into the inter se roles of the accused and the complete financial trail.

The petitioner therefore failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting anticipatory bail.

The petition was dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous and interconnected applications were deemed disposed of as infructuous.