Anticipatory bail may be granted where a corruption trap is complete and custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a police constable, and another constable demanded ₹1,00,000 by threatening to implicate the complainant’s son in further criminal cases, and had received ₹50,000 as an advance.

In a subsequent Lokayukta trap, the co-accused was apprehended while accepting ₹20,000; the petitioner allegedly escaped.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 20/2026, registered for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The co-accused had been granted regular bail after arrest.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS despite the prosecution’s concerns about witness intimidation and interference with the ongoing investigation

2. Whether custodial interrogation was required in light of the trap and seizure already completed

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for a direction granting bail in the event of arrest.

In considering anticipatory bail, the Court assessed the alleged offence’s maximum punishment, the need for custodial interrogation, the risk of absconding or interference with the investigation, and whether appropriate conditions could address the prosecution’s concerns.

The Court invoked the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” and observed that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment.

The alleged offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act carried a maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment, as noted by the Court.

The Court acknowledged that prima facie material implicated the petitioner and that the prosecution apprehended witness tampering and obstruction, particularly given his status as a police constable.

It nevertheless noted that the alleged offence was not punishable by death or life imprisonment, that no prior antecedents or special grounds for denying bail had been shown, and that the trap had already been conducted and the relevant amount and articles seized.

On that record, custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.

The Court considered that the investigation-related concerns could be addressed through conditions requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from tampering with witnesses.

Conditions included appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, cooperating with the investigation, attending court when directed, not tampering with witnesses, and not committing similar or other offences while the case was pending.

The order preserved the Investigating Officer’s ability to take the petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation with prior permission of the Special Judge/trial Court.