Custodial interrogation is unwarranted where alleged forgery concerns documents already available to investigators.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The complainant alleged that, after a dispute over rent for office premises, the applicant filed a specific-performance suit relying on an agreement to sell and a memorandum of understanding bearing forged signatures

The applicant characterised the dispute as civil, noting pending civil proceedings and an earlier police report treating the allegations as civil in nature; he also submitted that he had attended the investigating agency’s office about 65 times

The State and complainant opposed bail, asserting that the documents were forged, the applicant had not cooperated, and custodial interrogation was necessary

Whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the alleged forgery and related offences

Whether, in the circumstances—including pending civil proceedings, the documentary nature of the allegations, and the applicant’s stated cooperation—the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail

In deciding the application, the Court focused on whether custodial interrogation was warranted and whether the applicant’s presence could be secured during the investigation and trial

It observed that custody is not required merely to secure documents where the relevant documentary material is available or can be obtained from the parties

The Court did not decide the authenticity of the disputed documents or the merits of the alleged offences at the bail stage

Although the parties referred to authorities, the Court did not rely on or analyse a particular precedent in reaching its decision

The Court treated the alleged forgery of the agreement to sell and memorandum of understanding as the central allegation, while noting that their authenticity was also in issue in pending civil proceedings

It considered that the documents were available to the investigating agency, and that further documentary evidence could be obtained without taking the applicant into custody

The earlier police report and the pending civil suits lent prima facie support to the applicant’s submission that a civil dispute had been given a criminal complexion, though the Court made no final finding on the merits

The applicant’s stated attendance at the EOW office on about 65 occasions and willingness to cooperate persuaded the Court that his presence could be secured without custodial interrogation

In the event of arrest in the specified crime, the applicant was ordered to be released on a personal-recognisance bond of ₹25,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount.

He was directed to cooperate with the investigating agency during the investigation and trial and not to directly or indirectly pressurise or influence witnesses

The application was accordingly allowed and disposed of