01Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 66/2015, registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
¶ 1The prosecution alleged that, in 2014–15, iron bars supplied to the complainant were short by 274.48 MT because the accused persons had manipulated weighing receipts.
¶ 2The applicant, who was in the transportation business, maintained that he had not transported goods for the complainant and that police had made no attempt to interrogate him for approximately eleven years, until September 2026.
¶ 3The State opposed bail on the allegation of manipulation but did not dispute the delay in seeking to interrogate him.
¶ 402Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 66/2015
¶ 1, 6ii.2. Whether the circumstances—including the age of the case and the absence of any attempt to interrogate the applicant until September 2026—supported granting anticipatory bail
¶ 3–603Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for a direction granting bail to a person apprehending arrest.
¶ 1The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
¶ 1The Court cited no precedents or further legal test; it stated that the application was considered in light of the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the parties’ submissions.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420Section 406Section 467Section 468Section 471
04Reasoning
The Court considered the allegation that the applicant had manipulated weighing receipts alongside the applicant’s claim that he was not involved in transportation for the complainant.
¶ 2–3It also took into account that the crime dated from 2015 and that, as the State did not dispute, police had made no attempt to interrogate the applicant before September 2026.
¶ 3–4Having regard to these circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the Court allowed anticipatory bail without expressing any view on the merits.
¶ 605Holding
The Court allowed the application and directed that, if arrested in connection with the crime, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
¶ 7The applicant must be available for interrogation when required, must not influence persons acquainted with the facts or prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and must attend the trial court on every date fixed until disposal of the trial.
¶ 7The Court directed that a certified copy be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.
¶ 8Original Court PDF
PRASHANT ASHOK MOHODvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
