Anticipatory bail refused where cheating, forgery and conspiracy allegations were supported by non-cooperation with investigation.

Anticipatory bail was declined in proceedings arising from allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. The petitioners invoked Section 438 CrPC on the basis that money had been taken on a promise to execute a sale deed and that cheques were later used in a manner said to involve dishonour. The Court found that one petitioner had already enjoyed interim protection but had not joined the investigation, while the other was alleged to have been directly involved in the transaction and subsequent conduct. In view of these facts, no basis was found to extend interim protection or grant anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with allegations that they had taken the complainant's money on the promise of executing a sale deed, failed to do so, and had acted in concert by using cheques that were allegedly issued knowing they would be dishonoured. One petitioner had earlier been granted interim protection but had not joined the investigation, and the other petitioner was alleged to have been directly involved in the transaction and in the later conduct complained of. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to extend interim protection or to grant anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---