P&H HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Attorney Holder Who Conveyed Property To Sister-In-Law, Then Allegedly Attested Mortgage Deal Over Same Property

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant and his brother had agreed to purchase the property from co-accused, paying earnest money, but the vendors did not execute the sale deed.

Before that agreement, the petitioner, acting under a general power of attorney, had executed a registered sale deed for the property in favour of his sister-in-law. He was also alleged to have attested a later mortgage-related agreement concerning the same property.

The petitioner maintained that he was not party to the complainant’s agreement, had received no earnest money, and that the dispute was civil in nature; the State relied, among other matters, on the sequence of transactions, questions about the sale consideration, and the petitioner’s antecedents.

The Additional Sessions Judge had declined anticipatory bail, and the High Court independently considered the petition.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs the application for anticipatory bail.

The discretion to grant anticipatory bail is fact-specific, and the relevant factors are illustrative rather than exhaustive: State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510.

The absence of a need for custodial interrogation, by itself, is insufficient to justify anticipatory bail; the prima facie case, nature of the accusation, and gravity of the offence are also relevant: Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391.

A contractual or civil remedy does not, by itself, exclude criminal liability where the allegations independently disclose a criminal offence, though a failed transaction alone does not establish criminality.

The Court considered the petitioner’s execution of the 2019 sale deed in favour of his sister-in-law alongside his alleged attestation of a subsequent mortgage-related agreement and the later agreement with the complainant concerning the same property. It held that this sequence, the petitioner’s knowledge of the earlier conveyance, and questions concerning the stated RTGS consideration required investigation and could not be treated as merely incidental involvement at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The Court also found that pending civil proceedings and the documentary nature of the transactions did not outweigh the prima facie concerns; nor was the asserted lack of need for custodial interrogation decisive.

The petitioner’s antecedents were noted as relevant context, but the decision rested principally on the material concerning his alleged role in the transactions.

It directed that its observations were confined to the bail application and should not influence the investigation or subsequent proceedings.