Bombay High Court dismisses anticipatory bail of a real estate agent accused of conspiring with others to extort ₹82 lakhs from a restaurant owner under the pretext of bribing BMC officials

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in a case involving a conspiracy to extract ₹82 lakhs from the complainant under the pretext of bribing BMC officials. The Court held:

“There is no case made out by the applicant for the grant of anticipatory bail… custodial interrogation of the applicant in the peculiar facts and circumstances cannot be ruled out to unearth the truth and to go to the root of the matter.”

Facts

The applicant, a real estate agent with two co-accused, is alleged to have conspired to defraud the complainant, a restaurant owner in Mumbai. The complainant was induced to pay ₹82 lakhs—₹50 lakhs by bank transfer and ₹32 lakhs in cash—under the pretense that the money would be paid to BMC officials to facilitate the transfer of the restaurant’s ownership and reduce its rent.

Investigations revealed that ₹9.5 lakhs from the bank-transferred amount and ₹9.24 lakhs from the cash payments were credited into the applicant’s bank account.

The FIR was registered at the Vile Parle Police Station on April 14, 2025, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(1) of the BNSS.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant was directly involved in the conspiracy to defraud the complainant of ₹82 lakhs.
2. Whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation was necessary at the investigation stage.
3. Whether the applicant’s conduct and antecedents disqualify him from relief under anticipatory bail provisions.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the money received from the co-accused was a personal loan totaling ₹11,45,034, out of which ₹5,94,011 was repaid.
• He asserted the money was used for his mother’s cancer treatment, and he relied on medical bills for support.
• He argued that he was only introduced to the complainant in April 2024 for a property transaction and was not involved in any bribery or conspiracy.
• It was further contended that the applicant is the sole caregiver of his mother, who requires urgent surgery.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State contended that the applicant had received part of the ₹82 lakhs and was directly involved in the fraudulent scheme.
• It was argued that the claim of a “loan” was a post-facto fabrication as there was no documentation to support it.
• The prosecution emphasized the applicant’s criminal antecedents, including six prior cases under Sections 420 and 467 IPC, showing a consistent modus operandi.
• Material like WhatsApp chats and voice recordings indicated the applicant was fully aware and actively involved in the illegal transaction.
• The prosecution submitted that the applicant had been evasive, did not reside at the address stated in the bail application, and posed a flight risk.

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined the role of custodial interrogation in anticipatory bail jurisprudence and highlighted that such interrogation is crucial when it comes to eliciting information that would otherwise be concealed.

The Court relied on the legal principle that the existence of a prima facie case, seriousness of the offence, and the accused’s conduct must all be factored in while considering anticipatory bail. It held that custodial interrogation is not the only ground for rejecting bail but one of many critical considerations.

Precedent Analysis

The Court referred to two significant precedents:

1. Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529): “There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.”
2. CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997 AIR SC 3806): “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438.”

The applicant had relied on several High Court judgments, including Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and others. However, the Court distinguished those decisions, stating:

“There cannot be any straight jacket formula to be applied in matters of bail/anticipatory bail… the judgments cited… cannot be read piecemeal.”

Court’s Reasoning

• The Court found the explanation of the ₹11.45 lakhs as a “loan” to be dubious and lacking documentary support.
• WhatsApp chats and other evidence contradicted the applicant’s claim of non-involvement.
• The applicant’s prior criminal history demonstrated a pattern of behavior consistent with the current allegations.
• Attempts to delay or manipulate the proceedings (like withdrawing the application after argument) reflected poorly on the applicant’s credibility.
• The Court noted that: “The applicant has not approached the court with clean hands which is the sine qua non… in an application for pre arrest bail.”

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, stating that the custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the truth behind the alleged conspiracy involving ₹82 lakhs in bribe money. The Court further held that interference at the current stage of investigation was unwarranted.

Implications

• The judgment reinforces that anticipatory bail will not be granted lightly in serious economic offences involving public deception or bribery.
• Courts will closely scrutinize prior criminal conduct and behavioral patterns of the applicant before granting relief.
• Medical and personal grounds may not outweigh compelling evidence of fraud and public interest in investigation.
• The ruling also reiterates the role of custodial interrogation in enabling effective investigation, especially in conspiracy cases.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses Civil Revision Petition Under Section 115 CPC, Holds That Revision Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory Orders: “Order does not finally decide the lis and is not amenable to revision”