### Anticipatory Bail Rejected in Crore-Scale Financial Fraud Involving Forged Documents and Conspiracy by Employees

The applicant, an employee/sales manager at Shriram Finance Company, Gharghoda, sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 297/2025.

It is alleged that between 2017 and 2019, the applicant, in conspiracy with co-accused persons, sanctioned loans totaling ₹1,30,50,000/- to 26 individuals using forged documents and misrepresenting ownership of shops.

The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 7–8 years, that a previous similar matter was settled in Lok Adalat, and that the primary allegations were directed at a co-accused.

The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the magnitude of the fraud and the ongoing investigation.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offenses involving forgery and financial fraud.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC).

The charges against the applicant involve Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 470 (forged document), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court's exercise of discretion was guided by the gravity of the financial offense and the stage of the investigation.

The Court analyzed the severity of the allegations, noting that the applicant purportedly conspired with others to forge documents and misrepresent customers as being affiliated with private institutions to facilitate fraudulent loan sanctions.

While the applicant argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR and that co-accused had received regular bail, the Court prioritized the fact that the applicant's actions caused a significant wrongful loss of ₹1,30,50,000/- to the finance company.

The Court reasoned that because the investigation is still active and involves serious charges of conspiracy and forgery of valuable securities, the grant of pre-arrest bail would be inappropriate.

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.