Custodial interrogation is essential to unearth money trails and conspiracy in fraudulent sale of government land.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 389/2025 (PS Bawana) involving the alleged fraudulent sale of government land

The petitioner’s father-in-law, Dattar Singh, initially sold Gram Sabha land—now belonging to the DDA—to the petitioner.

On June 5, 2025, that sale was cancelled via a Deed of Cancellation witnessed by the complainant, and the land was immediately resold by Dattar Singh to the complainant

The petitioner signed this second sale deed as a witness

Following the transaction, the complainant found the land forcibly occupied by Dattar Singh’s son and discovered the land was actually government property

Investigation revealed that on the day of the transaction, Rs. 15,00,000/- was transferred from Dattar Singh to the bank account of the petitioner’s wife

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) given his alleged role as a conspirator in the fraudulent sale of government land

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the money trail and the involvement of other potential accomplices or officials

The court considered the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 330(2), 305, 331(4), 3(5), 318(4) (Cheating), 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy)

The court applied the principle that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and may be denied where custodial interrogation is required to investigate a complex conspiracy, unearth a "trail of money," or recover the subject matter of the fraud

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that he was a mere witness with no beneficial interest in the transaction. It noted the suspicious timeline where a sale was cancelled and a new sale executed on the same day, with the petitioner transitioning from "buyer" to "witness" to facilitate the fraud

Crucially, the court highlighted the financial benefit received by the petitioner's wife (Rs. 15 Lakhs) on the day of the crime, which pointed toward complicity in a conspiracy

The court found that because the government land had not been restored and the cheated funds were not refunded, the Investigating Officer (IO) had a legitimate need for custodial interrogation to "confront [the petitioner] with different documents," "track down the trail of the title chain," and investigate the "complicity of officials of the concerned government departments"

The court answered that the petitioner’s involvement appeared more than superficial and that custodial interrogation was justified to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy involving government property

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed