27. Individual business disputes do not, necessarily, justify custodial interrogation or, on that ground, denial of a prayer for anticipatory bail. A conspectus of the facts, as they obtained in the present case, discloses that the dispute pivots around whether the Board Resolution, dated 28th January, 2019, is a fabricated document, or not. It is a matter of record that the FIR, dated 24th February, 2020, lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the applicant, does not specifically allege that the signature of the Director, as it figures at the foot of the Board Resolution, is forged, even while disputing the validity of the seal and stamp of Respondent No. 2. The FIR is premised on the allegation that the Board Resolution is a fabricated document as, if it is not, Anand Kumar would, prima facie , stand authorised to sell the shops in question in the present case. The Settlement Agreement, dated 9th September, 2019, purports to have been issued in exercise of the authority conferred by the Board Resolution. Despite specifically seeking impleadment as Respondent No. 2 in these proceedings, and obtaining leave, of this Court, to oppose, by affidavit, the application of the applicant, the counter affidavit, that has come to be filed by Respondent No. 2, does not deny the crediting, of the two cheques, of ₹ 1 lakh each, into the account of Respondent No. 2, on 6th December, 2019, or seek to explain the same. Similarly, there is no traversal to the assertion, in the application, that Anand Kumar has been employed by a sister
