Anticipatory bail can be granted if circumstances show the accused's cooperation and lack of malice in the accusations.

ORDER

This application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 relates to Crime No. 1102 of 2025 of Kuruppampady Police Station. Petitioner No.1 is accused No.1 in the crime. The offence alleged against the petitioner No.1 is punishable under Section 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners 2 to 4 are not arrayed as accused in this crime and the Police have no intention to arrest them.

2. The prosecution case, as narrated in Annexure –

2, reads thus:-

“Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention to deceive the defacto complainant, promised the defacto complainant that the gold ornaments of accused No. 1 weighing 240 sovereigns are pledged in Bank of India Kuruppampadi branch and a sum of 12,40,000/- is required for discharging the loan and to take back the gold. He was promised that if he give that money the gold ornaments will be taken from Kuruppampadi branch and handed over to him or that they will pay the amount of 12.40,000/-. Accordingly they received the amount in cash and released the gold ornaments from Bank of India Kuruppambadi Branch, but without entrusting the gold to the defacto complainant they immediately left the place. Thus they have deceived the defacto complainant and committed the above mentioned offence.” (Sic)

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged by the prosecution, have not received any money from the de facto complainant. It is submitted that they have some financial transactions with one Sri. Sunil Kumar who is a close friend of the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rupees Twelve Lakhs from the de facto complainant for the purpose of releasing gold ornaments pledged with another bank and they failed to return the money. The learned counsel for the petitioners countered and submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioners received any money from the de facto complainant. The learned counsel, relying on a copy of the agreement dated 28.06.2025 entered into between the mother-in-law of Sri Sunil Kumar and the de facto complainant, contended that the crime has been registered as a result of a collusive move between the de facto complainant and Sri Sunil Kumar. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are prepared to cooperate with the trial.

5. I have gone through the Case Diary. The Case Diary reveals that the petitioners would establish a prima facie case.

6 While considering the scope of jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court inGurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] held thus:

“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail mus