The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad granted anticipatory bail to an applicant facing serious allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, emphasizing that inconsistent statements in the First Information Report, coupled with a prior complaint by the accused and evidence of financial manipulation by the informant, raise a strong prima facie case of false implication. The judgment reinforces that liberty should not be denied where the allegations lack credibility and the accused has no criminal antecedents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Abedabi Chandpasha Shaikh, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0541/2025, registered at Udgir Rural Police Station, District Latur, for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegations stem from a financial transaction involving the informant, a woman who claims she was induced to invest in a scheme called "Bhishi." For this purpose, she mortgaged her gold ornaments with a jeweller and received Rs. 18,50,000. She further alleges that this amount, along with the ornaments, was handed over to the applicant and others, who subsequently refused to repay or return the property.
Key Facts
- The informant claims Rs. 18,50,000 was given to the applicant and that ornaments were given to Afsara Valishah Shaikh
- The applicant filed a complaint with the same police station on 09.12.2024, alleging that the informant was engaged in money laundering and had obtained blank cheques from her
- The complaint dated 09.12.2024 predates the FIR dated 2025
- Investigative documents reveal that the informant had obtained multiple blank cheques from the applicant
- The informant’s statements in the FIR are inconsistent regarding the recipient of the money and ornaments
- The applicant has no prior criminal record
- The applicant was previously granted interim protection by an order dated 17.11.2025
- There is no allegation or evidence that the applicant misused the liberty granted under the interim order
Procedural History
- 09.12.2024: Applicant files complaint with Udgir Rural Police Station alleging money laundering by informant
- 2025: Crime No. 0541/2025 registered based on informant’s complaint
- 17.11.2025: Court grants interim protection to applicant against arrest
- 09.06.2026: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1999 of 2025 heard and decided
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail to prevent arrest in connection with Crime No. 0541/2025, arguing that the FIR is fabricated and that she is not likely to flee or tamper with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail can be granted where the First Information Report contains material inconsistencies, the complainant has a prior history of financial misconduct, and documentary evidence suggests the accused is being falsely implicated.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel, Mr. G. R. Syed, argued that the FIR is inherently unreliable due to contradictory statements about the recipient of the money and ornaments. He highlighted the applicant’s prior complaint dated 09.12.2024, which predates the FIR and alleges the informant’s involvement in money laundering. He further pointed to the recovery of blank cheques from the applicant by the informant as evidence of a potential fraudulent scheme. He submitted that the applicant has no criminal history, is cooperative with investigation, and has not misused the interim protection granted on 17.11.2025. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest should not be automatic and that the court must examine the credibility of allegations before denying liberty.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. P. J. Bharad, contended that the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are serious and prima facie establish the applicant’s involvement. She argued that the existence of a prior complaint does not negate the criminality of the acts alleged and that the court should not interfere at the pre-arrest stage where a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed review of the FIR and the documents submitted by the applicant. It noted that the informant’s account of the transaction was inconsistent on critical points - specifically, who received the money and the ornaments. The Court observed that the applicant’s complaint dated 09.12.2024, filed months before the FIR, raises a plausible narrative of retaliation or false implication. The recovery of blank cheques from the applicant by the informant further supports the applicant’s claim that the transaction was financial in nature and possibly exploitative.
"Prima facie perusal of the first information report indicates that there are inconsistent statements made by the informant with regard to the gold ornaments as well as money being given to any particular person."
The Court emphasized that the applicant’s liberty had already been protected by an interim order dated 17.11.2025, and there was no indication of misuse. The absence of a criminal record and the lack of any evidence suggesting flight risk or tampering with evidence weighed heavily in the applicant’s favour. The Court held that where the allegations are clouded by contradictions and the complainant’s conduct raises suspicion, the balance of convenience and the right to liberty tilt decisively in favour of granting anticipatory bail.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and confirmed the interim protection granted on 17.11.2025. The applicant shall not be arrested in connection with Crime No. 0541/2025 unless she fails to cooperate with the investigation or violates any condition of the bail order. The order remains in force until the conclusion of the trial or until further order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Implication Raises the Bar for Arrest
- Practitioners must now systematically document inconsistencies in FIRs and compare them with prior complaints or communications
- Evidence of the complainant’s financial misconduct or prior disputes should be presented early to challenge the credibility of allegations
- Courts are increasingly willing to grant anticipatory bail where the FIR appears retaliatory or lacks internal consistency
Documentary Evidence Trumps Oral Allegations
- Blank cheques, prior written complaints, and transaction records carry significant weight in bail hearings
- The timing of the complainant’s complaint versus the FIR is a critical factor - pre-FIR complaints by the accused are now treated as strong indicators of possible fabrication
- Courts will not grant arrest merely on the basis of serious charges if the underlying allegations are demonstrably unreliable
Interim Protection Is Not a Formality
- An interim order granting protection against arrest is not a mere procedural step - it reflects judicial assessment of credibility
- Misuse of such protection must be proven; absence of violation strengthens the case for continued bail
- Courts expect the investigating agency to act with restraint where the complainant’s conduct is questionable
