The Bombay High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to an applicant in a complex cheating and forgery case, emphasizing that prolonged inaction by investigating authorities cannot justify arrest after the charge sheet has been filed and no immediate threat to investigation exists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Chaitanya Santosh Koli, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0132 of 2024, registered on 29.04.2024 at Khandeshwar Police Station, Navi Mumbai, under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arises from allegations that the applicant’s mother, in collusion with a developer, lured the first informant and two other investors into parting with substantial sums of money and gold ornaments under false promises of property investment.
Key Facts
- The first informant came into contact with the applicant’s mother at a beauty parlour in early 2024.
- The initial complaint lodged with police did not name the applicant as a participant in the conspiracy.
- The applicant was not named in the first informant’s original complaint or in the statements of the other two aggrieved investors at the time of FIR registration.
- The applicant’s mother was arrested on 09.07.2024 and granted regular bail on 04.03.2025.
- The applicant’s father, another co-accused, was released on 03.05.2025.
- The applicant has not been arrested despite the FIR being registered for over two years.
- The charge sheet was filed on 05.09.2024.
- The allegations against the applicant first emerged only during police interrogation, not in the initial complaints.
- The applicant filed an earlier anticipatory bail application on 16.07.2024 (ABA No. 1887 of 2024), which was withdrawn after partial arguments.
Procedural History
- 29.04.2024: FIR No. 0132 of 2024 registered at Khandeshwar Police Station.
- 09.07.2024: Arrest of applicant’s mother.
- 16.07.2024: Applicant files ABA No. 1887 of 2024; later withdrawn after arguments.
- 03.05.2025: Release of applicant’s father on bail.
- 05.09.2024: Charge sheet filed by police.
- 07.04.2026: Present application (ABA No. 284 of 2026) heard before the Bombay High Court.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant contends that he was not named in the initial complaints and that the allegations against him were introduced only during police interrogation, suggesting a belated and possibly speculative attribution of liability. He argues that his continued non-arrest for nearly two years, despite the charge sheet being filed, demonstrates no necessity for custody.
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, argues that the applicant’s arrest is necessary to unearth the full conspiracy and trace the money trail, and that his cooperation cannot be assumed without custodial interrogation.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks interim anticipatory bail with conditions, including appearance before the Investigating Officer, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an applicant who has not been arrested for nearly two years after the filing of a charge sheet, and whose involvement was not alleged in the initial complaint, is entitled to interim anticipatory bail on grounds of police inaction and absence of immediate threat to investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that anticipatory bail is a preventive remedy meant to shield individuals from arbitrary arrest. He emphasized that the applicant was not named in the original FIR or in the initial statements of the complainants. The allegations against him emerged only during police questioning, raising questions about their reliability. He cited the prolonged delay in arrest - despite the charge sheet being filed in September 2024 - as evidence that custody is neither necessary nor justified. He further argued that the applicant has consistently remained accessible and has not evaded the process.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the applicant is a key conspirator in a multi-layered financial fraud involving multiple victims and substantial sums. She argued that the applicant’s presence is essential to unravel the money trail and to secure documentary evidence. She maintained that the fact that the applicant has not been arrested does not negate the seriousness of the allegations or the need for custodial interrogation to prevent tampering.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the charge sheet was filed on 05.09.2024, yet the applicant has not been arrested for over 19 months. The Court noted that the initial complaints did not implicate the applicant, and the allegations against him surfaced only during police interrogation. The Court remarked that this raises serious questions about the integrity and timing of the investigation.
"This is either a case of gross incompetence on the part of the investigating officer and his team or the police is deliberately not arresting the applicant and perhaps extracting its price from the applicant for ensuring his freedom during the course of investigation. In either case, this is a sad reflection on the role of police in investigation into such matters."
The Court further held that where the investigation is complete, the charge sheet is filed, and the accused has not been arrested despite ample opportunity, the presumption shifts in favour of granting interim relief. The Court found no material to suggest that the applicant would flee, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses, particularly given his prolonged cooperation with the investigation.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that custody is necessary to trace the money trail, noting that financial records and digital evidence are not dependent on the physical custody of the applicant.
The Verdict
The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail. The Court directed that if arrested in connection with FIR No. 0132 of 2024, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 50,000 and one or two sureties of like amount. He must appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.04.2026 and thereafter as required, fully cooperate with the investigation, and not influence any witness or tamper with evidence. Violation of any condition shall result in cancellation of bail. The case is listed for further hearing on 30.04.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Inaction Cannot Justify Arrest After Charge Sheet
- Practitioners may now argue that prolonged non-arrest after charge sheet filing, especially where allegations against the accused emerged only during interrogation, undermines the necessity for custody.
- Courts are likely to view such delays as indicative of weak or speculative evidence, not as grounds for detention.
Allegations Must Be Present at FIR Stage to Justify Arrest
- If an accused is not named in the initial complaint or FIR, and is only named later during investigation, this may be a strong ground for anticipatory bail.
- Courts may require the prosecution to explain why the accused was not implicated earlier, and failure to do so may weigh in favour of bail.
Interim Bail Conditions Are Sufficient for Cooperation
- Courts are increasingly willing to grant interim bail with strict conditions (appearance, cooperation, non-interference) even in serious cases, provided the accused has demonstrated willingness to comply.
- The absence of flight risk or evidence tampering, coupled with a complete investigation, reduces the need for custodial interrogation.
