Anticipatory bail protection may be made absolute after charge-sheet filing absent custodial interrogation or misuse.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 335 of 2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, for offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation was that co-accused Mahesh Marhia introduced co-accused Prakash Chandra Upadhyay to the informant to facilitate allotment of a government tender in favour of the informant’s firm, and that the accused, including the present applicants, received substantial sums of money and allegedly cheated the informant and others.

The applicants had previously obtained interim protection from arrest by orders dated 27 September 2023 and 5 October 2023, and claimed to have cooperated with the investigation.

The investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial had commenced.

Since the applications arose from the same FIR, they were heard and decided by a common order.

Whether the applicants’ interim protection from arrest should be confirmed and made absolute after completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether, in the absence of alleged misuse of liberty or non-cooperation, custodial interrogation of the applicants remained necessary at that stage.

The proceedings concerned anticipatory bail in relation to alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court applied the principle that, where an accused has remained protected from arrest, cooperated with the investigation, has not misused the protection, and the investigation has culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet, continuation of protection may be justified unless custodial interrogation is shown to be necessary.

The Court also applied the principle that observations made while deciding an anticipatory-bail application must not prejudice the merits of the prosecution case at trial.

The Court noted that the applicants had remained under interim protection for a considerable period and that there was no material indicating misuse of the liberty granted to them or failure to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Since the investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been submitted, and the trial had commenced, the matter had progressed beyond the investigative stage.

The State did not place any material demonstrating that custodial interrogation was then required.

In these circumstances, withdrawing the protection already enjoyed by the applicants was considered unwarranted.

The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the anticipatory-bail proceedings and would not affect the trial on merits.

The interim orders dated 27 September 2023 and 5 October 2023 were made absolute, and the applications were allowed.

In the event of arrest, the applicants were directed to be released on anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions contained in the earlier interim orders, subject to continued compliance and any further conditions imposed by the trial court in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.