Completed investigation and cooperation justify making interim anticipatory bail absolute absent need for custodial interrogation.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0190 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR concerned allegations that a property purchased by the complainant through a registered sale deed had also been sold to others.

The allegation against the applicants was that they introduced the complainant’s son to Rituraj, who allegedly executed the sale deed; the applicants asserted that no specific role in the transaction was attributed to them.

The Court had granted interim protection from arrest on 10 and 12 June 2026.

The investigation was completed and a charge-sheet submitted, and the applicants stated that they had cooperated with the investigation.

1. Whether the interim anticipatory-bail protection should be made absolute after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Whether any material justified requiring the applicants’ custodial interrogation or withdrawing their existing protection from arrest.

The FIR invoked Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The judgment cited no specific statutory provision governing anticipatory bail and no precedent.

In deciding whether to confirm interim protection, the Court considered the applicants’ cooperation with the investigation, the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, whether custodial interrogation remained necessary, and whether the applicants had misused the protection granted.

The Court found that the applicants had remained protected under the interim orders, cooperated with the investigation and had not misused their liberty. Since the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, the matter had moved beyond the investigative stage; the State had produced no material showing that custodial interrogation was necessary.

In the absence of any demonstrated misuse of protection, the Court considered it unwarranted to interfere with the liberty already extended to the applicants.

In the event of arrest, the applicants are to be released on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions as those earlier orders, and remain subject to any further conditions imposed by the trial court in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that its observations do not prejudice either party and that the trial court must decide the case on the evidence and in accordance with law.