Anticipatory bail was made absolute where no new material or misuse of liberty emerged.

The applicant was accused in Case Crime No. 143 of 2017, Police Station Cantt, District Lucknow, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that she withdrew ₹12,38,000 from the informant’s bank account through various transactions between 3 January 2015 and 25 February 2015 without the informant’s knowledge.

The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the prosecution was a counterblast to an FIR lodged by her against the informant for offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, registered as FIR No. 234 of 2017 on 16 February 2017.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

On 16 July 2022, a coordinate Bench granted her interim anticipatory bail subject to conditions, including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, and not leaving India without prior permission.

The State subsequently filed a counter-affidavit with investigation material, but the complainant did not allege misuse of the interim protection.

At the final hearing, no counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the application.

Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation and confirmation of the interim anticipatory bail granted on 16 July 2022 under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Whether any material subsequently produced by the State or the complainant justified taking a view different from that of the coordinate Bench granting interim protection.

The Court applied Section 438 Cr.P.C., governing the grant of anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest.

It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, which recognises that anticipatory bail may be granted subject to appropriate conditions and that the court may address future contingencies in accordance with the circumstances of the case.

The Court also applied the principle that interim protection should be made absolute where no subsequent material demonstrates misuse of liberty or otherwise warrants a different conclusion.

The bail conditions required the applicant to make herself available for interrogation, refrain from inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The coordinate Bench had initially considered the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s claim that the case was a counterblast to her rape complaint, the competing submissions regarding her criminal antecedents, and her undertaking to cooperate with the investigation before granting interim anticipatory bail.

Upon examining the State’s counter-affidavit and the material collected during investigation, the Court found no new fact warranting departure from the earlier view.

The complainant also failed to demonstrate misuse of the interim protection or advance any submission capable of justifying its withdrawal.

Applying the principles governing anticipatory bail and the ratio of Sushila Aggarwal, the Court therefore concluded that the interim protection ought to be continued and confirmed.

It found no material justifying reconsideration of the coordinate Bench’s order dated 16 July 2022 and accordingly made the interim anticipatory bail absolute.

The anticipatory bail application was allowed on the same terms: in the event of arrest, the applicant was to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to her availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and the restriction against leaving India without prior permission of the Court.