Non-arrest during investigation and cooperation entitle the accused to anticipatory bail upon filing of charge sheet.

The applicant, Rohit Khatwani, is the proprietor of M/s Khatwani Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd., a two-wheeler dealership.

A complaint was filed alleging that the dealership forged vehicle sale invoices to show a later date of purchase to avoid taxes/cess and delay registration. Specifically, a scooty purchased on 23.10.2019 was allegedly recorded as sold on 04.11.2019.

Crime No. 72/2021 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC.

The applicant cooperated during the investigation and was not arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

After the final report (charge sheet) was filed on 19.11.2025, the Magistrate issued summons. Apprehending arrest due to the gravity of Section 467 IPC, the applicant sought anticipatory bail after his application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 08.12.2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in a case where he was not arrested during the investigation and the final report has already been filed

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sec 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail

Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), Aman Preet Singh v. CBI (2021), and Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023), which establish that if an accused was not arrested during the investigation and cooperated with the agency, incarceration is generally unnecessary for trial upon the filing of a charge sheet

IPC sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using forged document as genuine)

The Court observed that the entire prosecution case is based on documentary and digital evidence already seized by the EOW; thus, there is no risk of the applicant tampering with evidence.

Crucially, the investigating agency chose not to arrest the applicant during the four-year investigation period, indicating his cooperation.

Applying the Siddharth and Aman Preet Singh doctrines, the Court reasoned that since the applicant’s presence was not required for custodial interrogation and he has no criminal history, his incarceration would serve no purpose other than social humiliation.

The Court noted that the applicant's status as a businessman with a clean record minimized the risk of him fleeing from justice.

The Court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety. This was subject to conditions that he shall not commit similar offences, shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must comply with trial proceedings under Section 346 of the BNSS. The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.