Serious cheating allegations and evasive conduct disentitle an accused to anticipatory bail.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR No. 24 dated 10.02.2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad.

The complainant alleged that on 14.03.2025 the petitioner represented himself as the owner of 1,532 square yards of land in village Nacholi, Faridabad, and entered into an agreement to sell the property for ₹1,64,18,000, receiving ₹45 lakh as earnest money; the sale deed was to be executed on 14.11.2025.

The complainant subsequently discovered that the petitioner had already executed a relinquishment deed in favour of his sons on 14.03.2014 and that mutation had been sanctioned after execution of the agreement to sell.

During the bail proceedings, the petitioner stated that he was willing to transfer the property to the complainant and honour the agreement, pursuant to which the matter was referred to mediation; however, mediation failed.

The petitioner thereafter stated that he had filed a civil suit concerning cancellation of the relinquishment deed, but submitted that its decision would take time.

Whether, in view of the allegations that the petitioner accepted ₹45 lakh as earnest money after agreeing to sell property that he had previously relinquished in favour of his sons, he was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Whether the petitioner’s subsequent undertaking to transfer the property, failure of mediation, and reliance on the pendency of a civil suit justified extending the concession of anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing the grant of anticipatory bail.

It also considered Section 318(4) of the BNS, under which the FIR had been registered for the alleged cheating-related conduct.

The governing principles applied were that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and equitable relief, to be assessed in light of the seriousness of the allegations, the accused’s conduct, and the overall circumstances of the case.

The Court also treated the petitioner’s conduct during the proceedings, including his unfulfilled undertaking and the subsequent reliance on the pending civil suit, as relevant to determining whether the concession should be granted.

The Court found the allegations serious because the petitioner allegedly executed an agreement to sell and accepted ₹45 lakh for land that he had already transferred to his sons through a relinquishment deed.

Although the petitioner had represented before the Coordinate Bench that he would transfer the property to the complainant, the mediation proceedings remained unsuccessful.

The Court further noted that the petitioner was granted opportunities on 02.07.2026 and 28.07.2026, but ultimately relied on the fact that the civil suit would take time to conclude rather than demonstrating immediate compliance with his undertaking.

In these circumstances, the Court inferred that the petitioner’s intentions were not bona fide and that the gravity of the allegations and his conduct disentitled him to discretionary protection under Section 482 BNSS.

The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.