Anticipatory bail remains available after chargesheet where serious offences create a reasonable apprehension of arrest.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 42/2019 registered by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7(B), 7(C), 13(2)(A), 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case concerned alleged irregularities in the construction of Kapildhara Wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately Rs. 7,33,471.

After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed; the trial court initially issued summons and subsequently issued a bailable warrant against the applicant.

The applicant relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons and submitted that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Whether the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of arrest, despite the trial court having issued summons followed by a bailable warrant after filing of the chargesheet, so as to maintain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS?

Whether, in view of completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet, the nature of the alleged offences and the treatment of co-accused persons, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which confers jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail where a person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest.

Section 409 IPC, being a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, was considered relevant to assessing the genuineness of the apprehension of arrest.

The Court considered Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4518, which held that anticipatory bail is ordinarily not maintainable merely because summons or a bailable warrant has been issued in a complaint case, since such process does not ordinarily involve police arrest or detention.

It also considered HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan, Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and the principles in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) concerning the requirement of a reasonable apprehension of arbitrary or unwanted arrest under anticipatory-bail jurisdiction.

The Court held that the reasoning in Asheesh Kumar was not determinative because that case concerned a complaint case, whereas the present matter arose from a Lokayukt investigation culminating in a chargesheet for, inter alia, the serious and non-bailable offence under Section 409 IPC.

Although the trial court had issued summons and thereafter a bailable warrant, the seriousness of the allegations and the statutory punishment under Section 409 IPC gave the applicant a reasonable apprehension that he could be arrested upon appearing before the trial court.

The Court further noted that investigation had concluded and the chargesheet had been filed, meaning that the applicant was not required for custodial interrogation.

The grant of bail or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons in connected cases, together with the applicant’s receipt of similar relief in other cases arising from the same transaction, supported a favourable exercise of discretion.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 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; violation of any condition would automatically terminate the protection.