P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Posing As NRI Buyer In Land Deal, Says Custodial Interrogation Is Needed

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 0134 dated September 4, 2025, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was introduced to the complainants as “Jai Prakash NRI,” a prospective purchaser of their land, and that this representation helped induce them to enter a subsequent transaction in which they paid ₹39 lakh and issued post-dated cheques.

The petitioner disputed being that person, denied involvement in the alleged inducement, and argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the evidence was documentary or electronic.

This was his third anticipatory-bail petition; the earlier petitions had been withdrawn with liberty to refile.

The State cited two other FIRs: one under investigation, and another in which the petitioner had been discharged.

The Court considered the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS and treated the nature and gravity of the allegations, the accused’s alleged role, the need for a free and effective investigation, and relevant criminal antecedents as considerations in exercising that discretion.

It relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, for the principle that custodial interrogation may be more effective than questioning a person protected by pre-arrest bail, and that such protection may impede the elicitation of useful information in an appropriate case.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioner was not merely a prospective purchaser but the person who posed as “Jai Prakash NRI” and participated in the representation that allegedly induced the complainants to proceed with the land transaction. It held that the petitioner’s contrary account—that he was only a purchaser and had himself been deceived—could not be accepted at this stage merely on his assertion.

The Court found the alleged role and the need to investigate the transaction and money trail sufficient to support the State’s request for custodial interrogation.

It rejected parity because the co-accused’s grants of regular bail involved considerations distinct from those governing anticipatory bail.

It also treated the petitioner’s antecedents as relevant, while noting the reported discharge in one of the other cases.

The remaining disputed factual pleas were left for assessment on evidence.

It clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.