Infant's welfare and civil nature of dispute justify grant of anticipatory bail in cheating allegations.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 191/2023 under Section 420 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner's husband, Daksh Sharma, purchased a used Mercedes Benz from his employer for Rs. 41,00,000/- while misrepresenting the petitioner as his cousin.

It was alleged that the car was taken to Hathras and, despite directions from the Court, neither the car nor its cost was initially returned.

The petitioner contended that the car had since been returned and a related civil recovery suit was consequently withdrawn by the complainant.

Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that she had given birth to a child in April 2026 and was nursing a two-month-old infant.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the civil nature of the dispute and the recovery of the property.

2. Whether the non-surrender of the co-accused (husband) or the delay in investigation by the State are sufficient grounds to deny liberty to the petitioner.

The court primarily applied Section 420 of the IPC regarding cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

It relied on the principle that anticipatory bail should not be denied solely because a co-accused has failed to surrender after their own bail rejection.

The court further emphasized the principle of judicial consideration for the welfare of an infant and the primary caregiver under Article 21 of the Constitution and general criminal jurisprudence regarding the necessity of arrest in cases of a civil nature.

The court observed that the dispute appeared to be a civil liability regarding a commercial transaction where the vehicle had already been returned and the civil suit withdrawn.

The court questioned the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation (the husband calling his wife his cousin) in the context of a sale.

Crucially, the court critiqued the Investigating Officer’s (IO) lack of timely action, noting that if arrest were truly necessary, it should have been executed long before the petitioner gave birth.

The court found that the welfare of the two-month-old infant outweighed the State’s interest in custodial interrogation, especially since the State’s previous efforts to arrest were minimal.

The application was allowed, directing that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety.

The court further clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not prejudice the trial.