P&H HC Makes 73-Year-Old’s Anticipatory Bail Absolute In ₹35-Crore Loan Case After He Joins Probe, Subject To Passport Surrender

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s interim anticipatory bail should be made absolute, having regard to his participation in the investigation and the asserted need for custodial interrogation

The court held

The Court made the interim anticipatory bail order absolute and allowed the petition.

It also directed

The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as required and to comply with Section 482(2) BNSS.

The order was made subject to the petitioner submitting his passport to the investigating agency or the competent court within one week; if he did not possess a passport, he was to file an affidavit to that effect.

The Court clarified that failure to comply would render the order automatically non est.

01Facts

The petitioner, aged 73, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered in 2021 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC, arising from a Rs. 35 crore loan obtained in 2015 by the petitioner’s Trust/company from the complainant-finance company.

pp. 2–4

The complainant alleged that documents used to obtain the loan were forged and that the loan remained unpaid.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner asserted that approximately Rs. 34 crore had been repaid to the complainant and offered a further Rs. 70 crore towards settlement; the complainant disputed the repayment and opposed bail.

pp. 6–7

On 5 October 2026, the Court granted interim protection, directed the petitioner to join the investigation, and imposed conditions concerning his passport and travel.

pp. 2–5

The State later confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation on 17 and 26 October 2026, while submitting that some documents remained to be examined.

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s interim anticipatory bail should be made absolute, having regard to his participation in the investigation and the asserted need for custodial interrogation

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the grant of anticipatory bail should be made subject to conditions concerning the petitioner’s passport and continued cooperation with the investigation

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides for anticipatory bail; the conditions specified in Section 482(2) apply to a person granted such protection.

p. 2, 5, 7

The Court’s determination also turned on whether custodial interrogation remained necessary in light of the petitioner’s participation in the investigation and the circumstances of the case.

pp. 6–7

No precedent was cited in the decision.

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 506 Section 34

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318 Section 338 Section 336 Section 340 Section 351 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the dispute arose from a commercial loan transaction and that the FIR was registered more than six years after the loan was taken.

pp. 6–7

It also considered the petitioner’s assertion of substantial repayments, his offer of a further Rs. 70 crore, and the deposit of Rs. 10 crore with the Supreme Court Registry pursuant to directions in related proceedings; the complainant’s objections to the asserted repayments and settlement offer were recorded.

pp. 6–7

The State confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation twice.

p. 6

On the record before it, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was no longer required and that the petitioner’s interim protection should continue, without determining the underlying financial or forgery allegations.

p. 7