Anticipatory bail granted where the accused cooperated with investigation and disputed facts were left for trial.

Anticipatory bail was granted where the accused had cooperated with investigation, appeared before the Investigating Officer, and co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Court treated the alleged forged-document dispute as a matter for trial and declined to express any view on merits to avoid prejudice. On those facts, the appellant was held entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The appellant faced apprehension of arrest in connection with offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record showed that the appellant had appeared before the Investigating Officer and cooperated with the investigation. The co-accused had already been granted bail at different stages. The Court also noted that the earlier bail applications had been withdrawn and that the question relating to forged documents was a matter for trial, and no opinion on merits was expressed so as to avoid prejudice.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to anticipatory bail and was ordered to be enlarged on such terms and conditions as the Investigating Officer deemed fit.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused has cooperated with the investigation, similar co-accused have been enlarged on bail, and the merits of disputed facts are best left to trial without causing prejudice.

---