Anticipatory bail may be denied where alleged conspiracy and custodial interrogation remain under investigation.

The applicant, Smt. Bhawna Rai, a Chief Booking Supervisor with the Railways, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 53/2026 registered at GRP Itarsi, District Narmadapuram, for offences under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that Railway cash amounting to ₹4,47,706, representing ticket-sale proceeds for 5–6 December 2024, had been embezzled pursuant to a pre-planned conspiracy involving the applicant and other Railway employees.

The FIR was registered on 15 January 2026, more than one year after the alleged occurrence.

The applicant asserted that she was on sanctioned leave, was not posted at or handling the relevant booking counter or cash, had no criminal antecedents, and that a departmental inquiry had fixed responsibility upon another employee.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, contending that the applicant’s precise role in the alleged conspiracy remained under investigation and that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to allegations of conspiracy and embezzlement of Railway cash.

Whether the applicant’s sanctioned leave, non-handling of the relevant cash, clean service record, absence of criminal antecedents, departmental inquiry, and delay in registration of the FIR justified granting anticipatory bail at the investigation stage.

Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant could be ruled out in view of the material already collected during investigation.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, and considered the allegations under Sections 316(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It reiterated that anticipatory bail must be assessed on the facts of each case by balancing personal liberty against the legitimate requirements of investigation, and that a mini-trial or detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible at this stage.

The Court relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694; and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, while clarifying that these authorities establish governing principles but do not confer an absolute right to anticipatory bail.

The Court held that the allegation was not limited to physical handling of the missing cash by the employee posted at the booking counter; it involved a broader, alleged pre-planned conspiracy among Railway employees.

Accordingly, the applicant’s alleged leave and lack of physical custody of the cash did not conclusively exclude her involvement.

Similarly, the departmental inquiry fixing responsibility upon another employee operated in a distinct field and could not determine the applicant’s criminal liability for conspiracy.

Although the delay in lodging the FIR was a relevant circumstance, it was not, by itself, sufficient to reject the prosecution case at the anticipatory-bail stage, since the reasons for detecting the shortage, conducting the departmental inquiry, and eventually reporting the matter required investigation.

The Court further found that the investigation had to determine the applicant’s precise role, the manner of the alleged shortage, and her connection with relevant Railway records, transactions, and co-accused. Consequently, the need for custodial interrogation could not be completely ruled out.

The seriousness of the alleged offence, the involvement of public money, the conspiracy allegation, and the unresolved role of the applicant outweighed her clean service record and lack of criminal antecedents.

It held that the seriousness of the alleged embezzlement, the alleged pre-planned conspiracy, the substantial amount of Railway cash involved, and the continuing need to ascertain the applicant’s precise role justified custodial investigation at that stage.

The application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was consequently rejected.