The grant of anticipatory bail is denied when allegations indicate a significant criminal conspiracy and the nature of the transactions suggests more than mere business dealings.

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections

318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.1 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, along with the other accused, induced the defacto complainant and cheated a sum of Rs.4,53,23,658/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are tenants under the defacto complainant and that, upon the request of the defacto complainant, they had assisted him in making certain investments. According to the learned counsel, what transpired between the petitioners and the defacto complainant is only a business transaction. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that a huge criminal conspiracy is involved in the matter and that several other accused are also involved. It is further submitted that the petitioners, with the help of the fifth accused, who is a Bank Manager, opened certain bank accounts in the names of persons known to the said Bank Manager and induced the defacto complainant to deposit huge amounts under the pretext of investment. Subsequently, the said amount was withdrawn by the Bank Manager and shared among the accused.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor also made submissions opposing the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. Though, on the face of it, the matter may appear to be a business transaction, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the second petitioner/A2.

9. Insofar as the first petitioner/A3 is concerned, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the said first petitioner has already been arrested. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is also dismissed as infructuous insofar as the first petitioner/A3 is concerned.