Anticipatory bail refused where custodial interrogation is essential to investigate an expansive, multi-state organized crime syndicate.

The accused/applicant, a clerk at the Road Transport Authority (RTA) in Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 07/2026 registered by the Crime Branch.

He is alleged to be part of a syndicate that tampered with chassis numbers of stolen vehicles and registered them using fake documents.

The prosecution claims the applicant misused his position to access the SDM’s email and Vaahan website OTPs to facilitate these registrations, often assigning numbers from far-off states like Telangana.

Investigation revealed the applicant processed files beyond office hours and even after his transfer by obtaining OTPs from his successor.

Specifically, vehicles stolen from Delhi were found registered with fake Himachal Pradesh numbers approved by the applicant.

The applicant is currently suspended and has absconded, allegedly hampering the investigation.

The court considered the charges under Sections 305(B), 316, 318(4), 336, 338, 339, 340, 3(5), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court applied the principle that anticipatory bail may be denied when the expanse of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover a wider conspiracy outweigh the individual's claim to liberty.

The court analyzed the applicant’s role in the syndicate, noting that he had unauthorized access to government portals and OTPs.

It rejected the applicant's defense that registrations were manual, citing IO records showing he processed files online and beyond office hours.

The court noted a communication from Telangana authorities confirming that the registration series used were non-existent/fake.

Further, the court observed that specific vehicles approved by the applicant were traced back to theft FIRs in Malviya Nagar and Kirti Nagar, Delhi.

The court reasoned that since the investigation covers multiple states and the applicant has been uncooperative/absconding, granting him protection would deprive the investigating officer of the essential opportunity for custodial interrogation required to analyze the complete data of tainted registrations.

The court found custodial interrogation necessary to prevent the investigation from being further hampered.

The application was dismissed.