Anticipatory bail remains maintainable after chargesheet where serious non-bailable offences create a reasonable apprehension of arrest.

The applicant, Subhash Chandra, aged 71 years, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 40/2019 registered at Police Station SPE, Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7(b), 7(c), 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution case concerned alleged irregularities in the construction of Kapildhara Wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately Rs. 5,26,547.

The investigation had been completed and the chargesheet filed; the trial court initially issued summons and subsequently a bailable warrant against the applicant.

The applicant relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons and submitted that he had no relevant criminal antecedents and was not required for custodial interrogation.

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

Whether, considering the completion of investigation, filing of the chargesheet, absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation, and the bail granted to similarly situated co-accused, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person has a reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence.

It considered Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act forming the basis of the prosecution.

The Court considered Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4518, which held that anticipatory bail is ordinarily unavailable in a complaint case merely because summons or a bailable warrant has been issued; HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan, Criminal Appeal No. 2415/2009, decided on 16 December 2009, concerning the effect of process issued in a complaint case; and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, which restricts anticipatory bail where the accused has been summoned and coercive processes have followed, subject to exceptional circumstances.

The Court held that the authorities relied upon by the State principally concerned complaint cases, whereas the present matter arose from a police investigation conducted by the SPE, Lokayukt, followed by the filing of a chargesheet.

Although the trial court had issued summons and thereafter a bailable warrant, the Court found that the applicant could reasonably apprehend arrest upon appearing before the trial court because Section 409 IPC is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, and the case involved serious corruption allegations.

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

The grant of regular or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons in connected cases further supported extending similar relief to the applicant.

On the totality of these circumstances, the Court concluded that the statutory requirement of a reasonable apprehension of arrest was satisfied.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Subhash Chandra be released on anticipatory 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 or evidence, non-commission of a similar offence, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India; violation of any condition would automatically terminate the protection.