Anticipatory bail refused in demonetisation-linked forgery and conspiracy allegations where custodial interrogation was found necessary.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was declined in allegations of cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts and criminal conspiracy linked to demonetisation-related bank deposits. The investigation disclosed prima facie material that large volumes of demonetised currency were deposited on the basis of receipts and vouchers allegedly created for thousands of fictitious customers, supporting offences of forgery, use of forged documents, falsification of accounts, abetment and conspiracy. The Court held that the seriousness of the economic offence, the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, and the need for custodial interrogation justified refusal of pre-arrest bail. The petitioners' status as company directors and reliance on demonetisation guidelines did not displace the prima facie criminality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case alleging cheating, forgery, falsification of accounts and criminal conspiracy in connection with demonetisation-related bank deposits.

Analysis: The allegations and investigation material indicated that large volumes of demonetised currency were deposited on the strength of receipts and vouchers allegedly created for thousands of fictitious customers. The Court found prima facie material for offences involving forgery, use of forged documents, falsification of accounts, abetment and criminal conspiracy, while finding no prima facie case for some other alleged offences. The Court also held that the nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the transaction, the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, and the need for custodial interrogation weighed against grant of pre-arrest bail. The plea based on the petitioners being company directors and on the demonetisation guidelines did not displace the prima facie criminality disclosed in the investigation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the request was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-arrest bail may be refused where prima facie material discloses a serious economic offence involving forgery, falsification of accounts and conspiracy, and custodial interrogation is necessary to secure effective investigation and prevent interference with evidence.

---