Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-RRB Chairman In CBI Case Alleging Bribes To Expedite Recruitment, Citing Completed Probe And No Arrest During Investigation

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning alleged irregularities in recruitment by RRB Gorakhpur.

The prosecution alleged that candidates were directed to meet the applicant, then Chairman of the RRB, and were asked to pay money to expedite their empanelment.

The CBI relied on statements of two co-accused who allegedly collected money on the applicant’s instructions and on a handwritten slip containing details of eight candidates, suspected to be in the applicant’s handwriting.

The applicant maintained that he was innocent, had no criminal history, and had not been arrested during the investigation.

The investigation had concluded and a charge-sheet had been filed; the Court did not examine the charge-sheet because it was not part of the record.

Section 482 BNSS provides the basis for the anticipatory-bail application; the Court considered the principles developed under Section 438 CrPC, including the Constitution Bench decisions in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, which recognize a broad, case-specific judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail and reject rigid, categorical restrictions.

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 establishes that economic offences are not an undifferentiated category in which bail must invariably be refused; gravity and circumstances must be assessed individually.

The Court also relied on Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116, concerning relief where investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed.

While Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025) 4 SCC 493 was cited for the proposition that anticipatory- and regular-bail considerations differ, the Court’s assessment remained case-specific.

The Court accepted that corruption and economic-offence allegations require a sensitive assessment, but held that the nature of the accusation alone did not bar anticipatory bail.

It considered that the applicant’s implication rested on co-accused statements, that no recovery had been made from him, and that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed.

The Court further relied on the applicant’s lack of criminal history, his non-arrest during investigation, the absence of a reasonable apprehension that he would evade the process, the stated maximum sentence of up to seven years, and the anticipated substantial delay before trial.

Taken together, those circumstances supported granting pre-arrest protection, subject to conditions.

In the event of arrest or appearance before the trial court, the applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, prior permission before leaving India, and appearance before the trial court as required.