Anticipatory bail granted where custodial interrogation is unnecessary despite allegations of high-value government procurement fraud.

The applicants, associated with firms "Mini Infratech" and "Global Network Solution," were implicated in a procurement fraud involving LCD/LED monitors under the Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission during 2010–2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, in conspiracy with others, inflated unit prices from approximately ₹57,950 to ₹1,26,500, resulting in a loss of ₹4,27,40,081 to the State exchequer.

It was further alleged that forged documents were used to legitimize these transactions.

An FIR (Crime No. 38/2016) was registered in 2016.

The applicants argued that they were merely marketing agents, the equipment was supplied at approved DGS&D rates, and the hardware was duly installed and certified by authorities without grievance.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the economic allegations and the procedural history of the case.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

Sections 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 (forgery-related offences), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which govern criminal misconduct by public servants and those acting in league with them.

The court noted that while the allegations involved significant financial loss, the FIR dated back to 2016, and custodial interrogation was not deemed necessary after such a substantial lapse of time.

The court observed that the applicants are private individuals and the record indicated that the supplies were made as per DGS&D approved rates and certified by the competent authorities, contradicting the claim of immediate criminal intent.

Furthermore, the court found no prima facie material establishing that the applicants derived direct wrongful gain, suggesting instead that the matter contained elements of a commercial dispute.

Given the lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that the applicants were private persons, the court determined that a trial would better resolve the detailed factual disputes.

The court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety each, subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses, (b) regular appearance before the trial court, (c) submission of verified identification (Aadhar card and photographs), and (d) refraining from committing similar future offences.