Anticipatory bail may be denied where alleged forgery and refusal to surrender evidence necessitate custodial interrogation.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 513/2025 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar for offences under Sections 318 and 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant became acquainted with the petitioner through a WhatsApp group after offering a concert ticket for sale. The petitioner allegedly misrepresented his family background and professional affiliations, gained the complainant’s confidence, and induced him to transfer money on different pretexts. He also allegedly sent forged screenshots purporting to show repayment.

During the pendency of the bail application, the petitioner claimed that the parties had compromised and that he had paid ₹1,00,000, but the complainant denied any settlement or receipt of payment.

The investigating officer produced the bank’s written response stating that the cash-deposit slip relied upon by the petitioner was not genuine and bore a forged bank stamp. Despite interim protection from arrest, the petitioner had not handed over the original slip for forensic examination.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of cheating, alleged use of a forged deposit slip, and the investigating officer’s requirement of custodial interrogation.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged part-payment or purported settlement with the complainant justified grant of anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for anticipatory bail, in the context of the offences alleged under Sections 318 and 316 BNS.

It applied the principle that bail proceedings are not a forum for recovery of money; consequently, whether the accused had paid the allegedly cheated amount was not determinative of entitlement to bail.

The Court further applied the established principle that custodial interrogation may justify refusal of anticipatory bail where the investigating agency demonstrates a legitimate need to secure material evidence and investigate the accused’s conduct.

The Court treated the alleged forged deposit slip as more significant than the disputed repayment or settlement.

The bank had reportedly confirmed that the slip was not genuine, and the petitioner had failed to produce the original document for forensic analysis despite enjoying interim protection.

His counsel also gave inconsistent instructions regarding whether the slip represented a cash deposit or a cheque, while the document shown to the Court appeared to be a cash-deposit slip and contained no cheque number.

Since the alleged compromise and part-payment did not resolve the criminal investigation and were, in any event, irrelevant to the recovery of money in bail proceedings, the Court found the investigating officer’s request for custodial interrogation justified.

It held that the alleged part-payment or purported settlement did not warrant anticipatory bail and that the circumstances, particularly the suspected forged deposit slip, failure to produce the original document, and legitimate requirement of custodial interrogation, made the case unsuitable for such relief.

The anticipatory bail application and the accompanying application were dismissed.