Mere credit of alleged proceeds into a bank account does not justify denying anticipatory bail.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 149/2024 registered at Police Station Bamhori Kala, District Tikamgarh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC

The complainant alleged that persons impersonating representatives of insurance companies induced him to transfer ₹26,11,808 through bank accounts and electronic modes on false assurances relating to insurance policies, bonuses, cancellation and release of funds

During investigation, ₹15,15,639 was found to have been transferred in several instalments into the applicant’s ICICI Bank account between 6 July 2023 and 26 December 2023.

The applicant, aged approximately 78 years, described himself as a retired IFS officer and ex-serviceman residing permanently in Karnataka.

He claimed that an unknown caller obtained his bank and debit-card details on the pretext of assisting him in securing an insurance amount, and that the subsequent transactions and withdrawals occurred without his knowledge or authorisation.

He had no stated criminal antecedents and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and comply with bail conditions.

The State opposed the application, contending that the applicant’s account had directly received substantial proceeds of the alleged fraud and that investigation was required into the operation of the account, debit-card transactions, withdrawals and his connection with the other accused persons.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite ₹15,15,639 of the alleged fraud proceeds having been credited to his bank account?

2. Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant was indispensable for investigating the alleged use of his bank account and tracing the subsequent withdrawals?

3. Whether the applicant’s advanced age, absence of criminal antecedents and permanent residence in Karnataka justified protection from arrest?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest, subject to appropriate conditions.

The Court also applied the statutory conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on leaving India and abstention from similar offences.

The conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS were also directed to apply.

The governing principle applied was that mere receipt of alleged proceeds into an accused’s bank account does not, by itself, establish knowing participation in cheating, forgery or use of forged documents; the necessity of custodial interrogation must be assessed with reference to the applicant’s specific role, the nature of the evidence and the availability of documentary or electronic means of investigation.

The Court found that the prosecution had not attributed any specific overt act to the applicant showing that he personally induced the complainant, prepared forged documents, used such documents or represented himself as an insurance agent.

Although ₹15,15,639 had been credited to his account, the applicant had furnished a specific explanation that his banking and debit-card details were obtained by an unknown person through deception; at the anticipatory-bail stage, the credit of funds alone was insufficient to establish knowing involvement.

The alleged transactions and withdrawals could substantially be investigated through bank records, electronic transaction data and other documentary evidence, and the State did not demonstrate that custodial detention was indispensable.

The applicant’s advanced age, lack of criminal antecedents, permanent residence and absence of any demonstrated risk of absconding, influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence further supported the grant of protection.

It directed that, if arrested, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or Arresting Authority.

The relief was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to appear for interrogation, refrain from inducing or threatening the complainant or witnesses, not leave India without prior permission, not commit a similar offence and comply with the conditions under Section 480(3) of the BNSS.