Anticipatory bail may extend through trial where the accused cooperated and custodial interrogation is unnecessary after chargesheet.

The applicant was accused in Case Crime No. 377 of 2025, Police Station Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar, for offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 308(3), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused represented themselves as having valid title over Plot No. 36 and sold it to Shri Radha Raman Shishya Sampradaya Foundation for ₹3 crore on the basis of allegedly fraudulent sale and succession documents; an additional ₹10 lakh was also allegedly obtained to settle objections raised by other family members.

The applicant claimed to be a bona fide purchaser who had acquired the property through a registered sale deed dated 25 August 2022 for ₹2.5 crore and subsequently sold it to the Trust through a registered sale deed dated 1 July 2023.

Civil litigation concerning the property was pending, and the applicant contended that the FIR had been lodged to exert pressure in that dispute.

A Division Bench had stayed the applicant’s arrest during investigation; he cooperated with the investigation, and a charge-sheet was filed on 1 March 2026, followed by cognizance by the Magistrate.

The applicant had not been arrested during investigation, and co-accused Ankit Sharma and Rimjhim Tripathi had been granted anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant, accused of cheating, forgery, criminal intimidation and allied offences arising from disputed property transactions, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether anticipatory bail was warranted where the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, had cooperated with the investigation, and the investigation had culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet based substantially on documentary evidence.

Whether the existence of pending civil litigation concerning title to the property militated against the grant of anticipatory bail.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS governing anticipatory bail.

It applied the principle that custodial interrogation is not invariably necessary where the allegations are primarily founded on documentary or official records and the accused has cooperated with the investigation, relying on Pradeep N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Criminal) No. 354 of 2019, decided on 28 February 2025.

The Court further relied on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, which holds that where an accused was not arrested during investigation and has cooperated, the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet does not by itself justify arrest or incarceration; ordinarily, the accused should be summoned and released on bail in accordance with law.

The Court also considered the established anticipatory-bail principles requiring assessment of the nature of accusation, the applicant’s role, cooperation with investigation, possibility of custodial interrogation, and the likelihood of misuse of liberty.

The Court noted that the two registered sale deeds relied upon by the parties had not been cancelled by any competent court and that no separate FIR had been lodged against the applicant by the alleged original owners or the vendor concerning those transactions.

Although the prosecution alleged fraud and forgery, the material relating to the transactions was documentary, the applicant had not obstructed the investigation, and the investigating officer had already collected the relevant evidence and filed the charge-sheet.

Applying Pradeep N. Sharma, the Court held that the prosecution had not demonstrated any continuing need for custodial interrogation.

Applying Aman Preet Singh, it further held that the applicant’s non-arrest during investigation and cooperation with the authorities were significant circumstances against directing his arrest merely because cognizance had been taken.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and while taking into account the pending civil dispute, the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s role, his antecedents, and the completion of investigation, the Court found the case appropriate for anticipatory bail.

In the event of arrest, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of the trial on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

He was required to cooperate with the trial and appear before the court whenever required, refrain from influencing or intimidating witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer, or informant was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.