Anticipatory bail granted where accused’s implication rests solely on co-accused’s disclosure statements without corroborating evidence.

The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) invited bids for placing surplus funds of Rs. 103 crores in fixed deposits.

Although Punjab & Sind Bank (Yamuna Vihar Branch) emerged as the successful bidder, it was later discovered that the bank had not officially submitted such a bid and an unauthorized account in NHIDCL’s name had been opened to facilitate the transfer.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Mahesh Chand Pandey, coordinated with NHIDCL alongside co-accused Murari Lal, based on the latter’s confessional statement.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending he was falsely implicated solely on the basis of co-accused statements, while the funds remained safe.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail in light of the nature of evidence collected during the six-month investigation.

The court evaluated the application within the framework of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now under relevant provisions of BNSS) concerning anticipatory bail.

The court emphasized that the admissibility of evidence is critical, noting that disclosure statements of co-accused persons are generally insufficient for custodial interrogation without independent corroboration.

The court considered the necessity of custodial interrogation for a Test Identification Parade (TIP) against the delay in investigation and the lack of documentary or technical evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The offences cited include Sections 318(4) (Cheating), 319 (Cheating by personation), and 61(2) (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court observed that despite an investigation spanning six months, the prosecution failed to produce legally admissible evidence against the applicant.

The Investigating Officer (IO) admitted that the applicant never visited the NHIDCL office or the bank, and there was no CCTV footage or technical data to corroborate the claim that he met the bank manager outside the premises.

The court highlighted significant lapses in the investigation regarding how NHIDCL could transfer Rs. 103 crores without a validly opened account and why the bank failed to conduct physical verification for a PSU account.

Since the applicant’s identity was not known by name to the bank manager and the investigation remained "sketchy," the court determined that withholding liberty solely for a delayed TIP was inappropriate.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety, conditioned upon the applicant joining the investigation when called in writing.