Interim protection from arrest granted subject to appearance and cooperation with the investigation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning an alleged car-purchase fraud.

She submitted that she was a sales agent and had no access to or control over the company’s accounts.

The State and complainant opposed relief, alleging that the applicant had a similar criminal case and had failed to comply with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The parties disputed whether she had previously appeared before the Investigating Officer; the Court’s inquiry could not resolve the dispute because the police station had no CCTV camera and the relevant footage was unavailable.

The applicant offered to appear afresh and cooperate with the investigation.

Whether, in the circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant appeared necessary at that stage.

Whether the applicant should be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and receive interim protection while cooperating with the investigation.

Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was relevant because a notice under that provision had been issued to the applicant.

The Court reasoned that, where the applicant expressed willingness to appear and cooperate, custodial interrogation did not appear necessary at that stage.

The Court acknowledged the unresolved dispute over the applicant’s earlier appearance, noting that the requested CCTV footage could not be produced.

Rather than determine that factual dispute, it relied on the applicant’s renewed undertaking to appear and cooperate, together with the prior issuance of a Section 35(3) notice, to conclude that custodial interrogation was not then required.

It therefore directed a specified appearance and preserved the Investigating Officer’s ability to conduct a fair and lawful investigation and take lawful steps if the applicant failed to appear.

The Investigating Officer was to be informed and remain available; if the applicant failed to appear, appropriate steps could be taken in accordance with law.

The protection granted did not prevent a fair and lawful investigation, and the applicant remained free to seek appropriate relief if a cause of action arose.

The application and any pending applications were disposed of.