Advanced investigation and lack of need for further custody justified bail in an alleged bribery case.

The applicant, a Superintending Engineer in BSNL’s Electrical Department, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a CBI case alleging offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

He had been in judicial custody since 27 August 2026.

The complaint alleged that he demanded illegal gratification of 2.5% in connection with the complainant firm’s pending bills.

During trap proceedings, tainted currency of Rs. 75,000 was recovered from the applicant’s table; the CBI alleged it had been placed there on his direction.

The applicant disputed his role, including his competence to clear the bills, and relied on the absence of phenolphthalein traces on his hands and the lack of recovery from his immediate physical possession.

The CBI opposed bail but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and was about 57 years old.

The investigation was at an advanced stage; voice-spectrography and mobile-extraction reports remained pending, and the applicant’s voice sample and relevant materials had been collected.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the circumstances relevant to continued detention.

2. Whether appropriate conditions could address the risks of absconding, reoffending, witness influence, or evidence tampering while the applicant remains on bail.

The Court considered the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which provides the basis for consideration of regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations and available material, the stage of investigation and need for further custody, the applicant’s antecedents and personal circumstances, the prospect of trial delay, and risks of flight, reoffending, or interference with evidence or witnesses.

The order also required compliance during trial with Section 309 CrPC/Section 346 BNSS concerning examination of witnesses in attendance.

The Court noted the prosecution’s reliance on the recorded conversation and recovery of the tainted currency from the applicant’s table, but considered that the applicant’s submissions had prima facie substance and were not manifestly baseless; the merits of the accusation were left for trial.

Since the investigation was advanced, relevant seizures had been made, and custodial interrogation was not considered necessary, continued detention was not justified on investigative grounds.

The applicant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, family responsibilities, and the expected duration of trial weighed in his favour.

The Court also found no apparent likelihood of flight, recidivism, evidence tampering, or witness influence, while imposing conditions to safeguard the proceedings.

The bail order remains effective until the end of trial; breach of its conditions may lead the trial court to consider cancellation of bail on the merits.