Anticipatory bail granted to public servant for actions performed bona fide in discharge of official duties.

The applicant, Pankaj Dev, serving as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat, Doundilohara, sought anticipatory bail following his apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No. 195/2026.

The complainant, an advocate, alleged that co-accused Santosh Karn and Gopal Vaishnav induced him to invest ₹1,33,64,000/- for the installation of 1,000 solar panels based on assurances of high profits.

The work was halted, and the complainant discovered that the applicant (in his capacity as CEO) had not issued the requisite work orders.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that, upon discovering unauthorized work orders issued by Sarpanchas, he had actually issued restraining memos and informed higher authorities in the bona fide discharge of his duties.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations of fraud and cheating under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the statutory framework for direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

Section 318(4) (Cheating), Section 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy), Section 3(5) (Common Intention), and Sections 336(3), 338, and 340(2) relating to forgery and documents [of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023].

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the principles of personal liberty and the likelihood of the applicant cooperating with the judicial process.

The court noted the applicant's defense that he had no involvement in the alleged cheating and that his actions—restraining unauthorized installations—were performed in his official capacity as CEO.

The court observed that the financial transactions were primarily linked to the co-accused, who had already been granted bail.

The court considered the applicant’s status as a permanent resident, reducing the risk of him absconding.

Given that the investigation and subsequent trial were expected to be prolonged, and considering the specific nature of the allegations against the applicant, the court found that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage.

The holding directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to several conditions: (a) the applicant must not influence or threaten witnesses; (b) the applicant must not prejudice the trial; (c) the applicant must appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates; and (d) the applicant must not involve himself in similar future offences.