Accused cannot be detained indefinitely when further custodial interrogation is unnecessary during investigation.

The petitioner, Sri Abhishek Chomal, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, arising out of G.R. Case No. 1041/2026.

The case was registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR alleged that the informant’s biometric particulars, fingerprints and iris scans, obtained in connection with enrolment in a Skill India-related programme, were liable to be misused for attendance and other unauthorised purposes.

The petitioner claimed to be a director of Prudentials Infotech Ltd., which had been awarded work by RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. for implementation of the PM VIKAS Scheme and had engaged Meliorism Skill Development (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. for ground-level execution.

The petitioner asserted that he had no direct role in the allegations, had appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to notice, and had cooperated with the investigation.

Despite this, he was arrested and remained in custody for more than 27 days.

The Investigating Officer had sought five days’ police remand to investigate the utilisation of project funds, the contractual chain, the collection and use of biometric data, and the roles of connected persons; however, only three days’ police remand was granted, after which the petitioner was sent to judicial custody.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, having regard to the allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of custody and his asserted cooperation with the investigation?

2. Whether continued custodial detention was necessary when the Investigating Officer had completed the available police remand and had not sought further custodial interrogation?

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail to a person accused of an offence and requires the Court to assess whether continued detention is necessary in the circumstances of the case.

The substantive allegations arose under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The governing bail principle applied was that an accused should not be detained indefinitely merely because the investigation remains incomplete, particularly where custodial interrogation is no longer sought or appears necessary and the accused can be secured through appropriate bail conditions.

The Court noted that the investigation proposed to examine several financial and operational aspects, including the utilisation of funds received from RailTel, downstream subcontracting, the functioning of training centres, the collection of biometric data and the petitioner’s knowledge and supervision of those activities.

However, the petitioner had already undergone three days of police remand and had thereafter remained in judicial custody, while the Investigating Officer had not sought any further custodial interrogation.

The Court observed that although the investigation might be extensive and require additional time, the petitioner could not be kept in custody indefinitely until its completion, particularly in view of the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s role as disclosed at that stage.

The need to secure his continued cooperation could be addressed through a specific bail condition requiring him to appear before and cooperate with the Investigating Officer whenever required.

The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

He was further directed to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required or summoned.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.