Anticipatory bail warranted where delayed FIR, parity with bailed spouse, and absence of criminal antecedents exist.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 307/2025 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Balodabazar, for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant, an HDFC Bank employee, alleged that between 23 July 2024 and 19 October 2024, the applicant, her husband and other accused induced him to invest money in a company called “VIP Trade” on the promise of monthly returns of 10–12%, thereby dishonestly obtaining approximately ₹8,06,640.

The FIR was lodged on 26 March 2025.

During investigation, certain co-accused persons, who were already in custody in another case in Rajasthan, were arrested in the present case pursuant to production warrants.

The investigating agency subsequently filed Final Report No. 158/2026 dated 28 March 2026, showing the applicant and two other persons as absconding, while filing the charge-sheet against the remaining accused.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, relying on the delay in lodging the FIR, the grant of bail to her husband, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant, who apprehended arrest for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the grant of bail to the applicant’s husband, and the applicant’s absence of criminal antecedents justified extending the protection of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail where a person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence.

The alleged offences were Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, concerning cheating, criminal breach of trust and liability for acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, as alleged in the case.

In determining whether anticipatory bail should be granted, the Court considered the surrounding circumstances, including the delay in reporting the alleged incident, parity with a co-accused, the applicant’s criminal antecedent status, and the need to impose conditions ensuring a fair investigation and trial.

The Court found that the alleged transactions occurred between 23 July 2024 and 19 October 2024, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 26 March 2025, indicating a substantial delay in initiation of the criminal case.

It further noted that the applicant’s husband had already been granted bail by the trial Court and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

Although the State opposed the application, the Court considered these circumstances sufficient to extend the discretionary protection available under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The Court therefore treated the delay, parity with the applicant’s husband, and the applicant’s clean antecedent record as outweighing the need for custodial arrest at that stage.

The Court directed that, in the event of her arrest, Kanija Begum be released on bail upon execution of a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was made subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fairness of the trial, requiring her appearance before the trial Court on every date, mandating submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents, and prohibiting involvement in a similar offence in the future.