The accused later petitioned the High Court for anticipatory bail. He contended that a cheque he issued for ₹3.6 lakh to the complainant woman's husband bounced, and he declined to issue a new cheque because the husband had not served him a notice to initiate proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Additionally, he argued that he had lodged a police complaint against the woman's husband two months prior to the woman filing her complaint against him. However, the public prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application, asserting that the monetary transactions as claimed by the petitioner were false. The prosecutor contended that the evidence and facts available suggested that the complainant's account of events was accurate.

The de-facto complainant informed the Court that the petitioner had defrauded others using the same scheme. Considering this information, the Court deemed it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail in this matter. Instead, it directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer by March 7 and cooperate fully with the investigation.