Anticipatory bail may be granted where serious non-bailable charges create reasonable apprehension despite summons or bailable warrant.

The applicant, Baburam Hindoliya, aged about 70 years, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 41/2019 registered at Police Station SPE, Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution case concerned alleged irregularities relating to Kapildhara wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately ₹73,221.

The investigation had concluded and the chargesheet had been filed.

Although the trial court initially issued summons, it subsequently issued a bailable warrant against the applicant.

The applicant relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons and submitted that he was not required for custodial interrogation.

The State opposed the application, contending that the issuance of summons followed by a bailable warrant did not create a reasonable apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail.

1. Whether the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of arrest despite the trial court having issued summons and thereafter a bailable warrant after filing of the chargesheet?

2. Whether, in the circumstances—particularly completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet, the applicant’s age, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused—the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court examined the principles in *Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P.*, which generally distinguishes arrest by the police from custody pursuant to court process; *HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan*, concerning anticipatory bail in complaint cases; and *Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar*, which restricts anticipatory bail where the accused has been summoned and coercive processes have followed, while leaving room for exceptional relief in the interests of justice.

The Court also relied on the principles governing anticipatory bail under *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia* and *Sushila Aggarwal*, particularly the requirement of a genuine and reasonable apprehension of arrest.

The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the State because they principally concerned private complaint cases, whereas the present matter arose from a police investigation conducted by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, followed by filing of a chargesheet.

Section 409 IPC is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life; therefore, notwithstanding the issuance of summons and a bailable warrant, the Court held that the applicant had a reasonable apprehension that he could be arrested upon appearing before the trial court.

The investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The applicant’s advanced age, the grant of bail or anticipatory bail to similarly placed co-accused, and the absence of relevant adverse criminal antecedents further supported the exercise of discretion in his favour.

The application was allowed, and it was directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, trial court, or Committal Court, as applicable.

The relief was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with interrogation and trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

Breach of any condition would automatically terminate the protection.