Accused Cooperating for 3 Years; Cannot Be Arrested Without Just Cause” – Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail in Fake Pharmacy Registration Case

 Once Co-Accused Granted Bail on Identical Charges, Parity Must Prevail”  - Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted anticipatory bail protection to six applicants accused in a forgery case concerning fake pharmacy registration certificates. Justice Manish Mathur noted that the applicants had already been cooperating in the investigation for over three years, and found no justifiable reason to subject them to custodial arrest while the probe nears conclusion.

 Protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicants.

FIR Alleges Forged Documents Were Submitted for Pharmacist Registration; Investigation Ongoing Since 2021

 The case originated from Case Crime No. 79 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC at Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow. The FIR alleged that the applicants and others had submitted forged documents to obtain registration as pharmacists.

 The Court was informed that the allegations remain under investigation and that:

 “The case of the applicants is at par with that of co-accused... who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.”

Court Recognizes Parity with Previously Protected Co-Accused

Counsel for the applicants submitted that multiple co-accused including Jafar Ali, Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya, Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Ankit Kumar Agarwal, and others had already been granted anticipatory bail in connection with the same FIR or related allegations, through orders passed between July 2024 and January 2025.  

Agreeing with this submission, the Court held:

 “Upon consideration of submissions... it appears that the first information report has been lodged against various persons on the same allegations of submitting forged documents. Co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.”

Arrest Not Warranted When Accused Cooperating and Investigation Nears End

 It was also pointed out that the applicants have remained cooperative since 2021, and the investigating officer is now seeking their arrest based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 170 Cr.P.C., which has been repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court.

 The Court took note of this fact and held that custodial interrogation was not necessary:

 “For the last three years the investigation of the case is going on and the applicants are cooperating... The same is at the concluding stage.”

 Interim Anticipatory Bail Granted Till Filing of Chargesheet

 The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application by granting interim relief with conditions. It directed that:

 “In the event of arrest of applicants... they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount.”

The protection shall continue till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., i.e., till the chargesheet is filed.

Applicants were further directed:

 To cooperate in investigation as and when called,

 Not to intimidate or influence any witness,

 Not to leave the country without permission.

Conclusion: Parity, Cooperation and Delay Justify Interim Protection from Arrest By applying principles laid down in Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 64, the High Court reinforced that anticipatory bail must be granted when arrest is neither necessary for investigation nor justifiable under the law.

 The order reiterates the principle that bail, not jail, must remain the rule, especially in white-collar cases involving document-based investigations where the accused have cooperated and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2025