Significant delay in lodging FIR and absence of criminal antecedents warrant grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant, an employee of SMC Global Securities Limited, allegedly induced the complainant to invest in mutual funds and stocks with a promise of 5% monthly returns

The complainant initially invested ₹1 Lakh in June 2020 and eventually increased the total investment to ₹50 Lakhs, including funds in his wife's name

Although returns were paid initially, they later ceased, leading to a police complaint alleging the applicant duped the complainant of ₹50 Lakhs

The applicant moved for anticipatory bail, arguing that the complainant was attempting to recover losses incurred in the stock market and highlighting a six-year delay in lodging the FIR

The State opposed the bail but acknowledged the applicant had no prior criminal record

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the alleged delay in FIR and the nature of the commercial dispute

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the grant of anticipatory bail

Substantively, the case involved Section 420 (cheating) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The court's discretion was guided by established principles concerning the impact of delay in FIR registration and the relevance of the accused's criminal antecedents in bail matters

The Court examined the facts and circumstances, noting the applicant's contention that the case was an attempt to extort him for stock market losses

It focused specifically on the material available on record, which indicated a significant delay in lodging the FIR relative to the initial transaction date

The Court further balanced the severity of the allegations with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal record

Consequently, the Court found that these factors—delay and clean antecedents—merited the exercise of its discretion to protect the applicant from arrest pending trial, provided certain safeguards were in place

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

The relief was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not threaten witnesses, must appear before the trial court on all dates, and must not engage in similar future offences