Rajasthan High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Under Section 482 BNSS: “No Incriminating Evidence Against the Petitioner to Reflect Criminal Conspiracy,” Protects Liberty Amid Allegations

Court’s Decision:

The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS (previously Section 438 CrPC), observing that no incriminating evidence had been presented to establish the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal conspiracy. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and ruled that his custodial interrogation was unwarranted. Bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the petitioner’s availability for further investigation.

Facts of the Case:

1. Nature of the Case: The case involved allegations of forgery, criminal conspiracy, and other related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471, and others.
2. FIR Registration: The FIR (No. 0210/2019) was filed at Police Station Narayanpur, District Alwar, alleging the petitioner’s involvement in a conspiracy to defraud.
3. Court’s Direction: In a previous order dated 12.12.2024, the High Court had directed the petitioner to join the investigation, which he complied with.
4. Investigation Status: The petitioner had been interrogated, and no incriminating evidence implicating him in the alleged criminal conspiracy had emerged.

Issues Addressed by the Court:

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR warranted the petitioner’s custodial interrogation.
2. Whether the petitioner’s compliance with previous court directions and the lack of evidence justified granting anticipatory bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. False Implication: The petitioner claimed he had been falsely implicated in the matter without any substantive evidence to link him to the offences mentioned in the FIR.
2. Compliance with Investigation: He argued that he had fully cooperated with the investigating authorities by joining the investigation as directed by the court earlier.
3. No Evidence Against Him: The petitioner emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of his involvement in a criminal conspiracy or other offences.
4. Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary: He asserted that his arrest was not required as it would serve no purpose in advancing the investigation.

Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments:

1. Opposition to Bail: The Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing the seriousness of the offences alleged in the FIR.
2. Acknowledgment of Cooperation: However, the prosecution admitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that no incriminating evidence had been discovered against him so far.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 482 BNSS (Previously Section 438 CrPC):
   • The provision enables courts to grant anticipatory bail to protect individuals from unnecessary harassment when there is no substantial evidence against them.
   • The court must balance individual liberty with the interests of justice and investigation.
2. Factors Considered:
   • The petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.
   • The absence of evidence implicating the petitioner in criminal conspiracy or other alleged offences.
   • The principle that arrest should not be used as a tool for harassment when the accused has complied with the law.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Although the court did not explicitly refer to prior judgments, it adhered to established principles governing anticipatory bail:
   • Courts must ensure that anticipatory bail is granted in cases where there is no substantive evidence against the accused.
   • Emphasis is placed on balancing the protection of personal liberty with the need for effective investigation.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Compliance with Investigation: The court acknowledged that the petitioner had joined the investigation following its previous order and cooperated fully with the authorities.
2. Absence of Evidence: It noted that the prosecution had not presented any evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy.
3. Protection of Liberty: The court underscored the importance of protecting personal liberty when the investigation does not justify arrest or custodial interrogation.

Conclusion:

The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must remain available for interrogation whenever required by the investigating officer.
2. He must not make any attempt to threaten or influence witnesses involved in the case.
3. The petitioner must seek prior court permission before leaving the country.

The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 along with two sureties of ₹50,000 each.

Implications:

1. Protection of Individual Rights: The judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individuals from undue harassment during criminal investigations.
2. Balancing Justice and Liberty: The decision highlights the balance between ensuring effective investigation and protecting personal liberty.
3. Guidance for Future Cases: The case serves as a precedent for granting anticipatory bail when evidence against the accused is insufficient, ensuring that the law is not misused to harass individuals.

The judgment underscores the principle that courts must prevent the misuse of investigative processes while upholding the rule of law. This approach fosters trust in the judicial system and ensures that liberty is not compromised without sufficient cause.

Also Read – Supreme Court Remands Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Case: Sets Aside High Court Judgment Over Misconception Regarding Non-Alienability Under Revised Assignment Policy of 1958 and AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977