Bail cannot be refused solely because co-accused persons remain unarrested.

The petitioners, Prafulla Kumar Behera, a Junior Engineer, and Prasanta @ Prasant Kumar Patro @ Patra, an Assistant Engineer, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 01 of 2026 (V), pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Phulbani

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with other government officials and a Sarpanch, conspired to misappropriate government funds by inflating the value of five public works from approximately Rs.7,42,357.26 to Rs.49,84,535, resulting in alleged misappropriation of Rs.42,42,177.74 through false bills, vouchers and forged documents

The alleged offences were under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act and Sections 316(5), 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The petitioners had remained in custody since 1 July 2026; the Court noted that the Junior Engineer had deposited Rs.6,50,000 and Rs.1,24,360 in favour of the CDO-cum-EO, Zilla Parishad, Kandhamal, while clarifying that it was not determining the amount of alleged misappropriation at the bail stage

Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, despite allegations of corruption, criminal conspiracy, forgery and misappropriation of government funds

Whether the fact that certain co-accused persons had not yet been arrested justified refusal of bail to the petitioners

Whether the petitioners’ period of custody, progress of investigation, and absence of material indicating absconding or witness intimidation warranted grant of bail

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail.

It considered the settled principle that bail is not an adjudication of innocence or acquittal, but a temporary release subject to the accused’s assurance to attend trial

The Court also applied the bail-related considerations of the length of pre-trial detention, the stage and progress of investigation, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the risk of absconding or influencing witnesses

The statutory offences alleged against the petitioners were under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act and Sections 316(5), 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS

The Court acknowledged the serious allegations of misappropriation of government money and the involvement of other officials and a Sarpanch

However, it found that the petitioners were government officials who had already spent nearly two months in custody, that the investigation was likely to have progressed substantially, and that neither petitioner had been taken on police remand for custodial interrogation

The Court further held that the non-arrest of co-accused persons, by itself, could not justify continued detention of the petitioners.

Since there was no material suggesting that the petitioners would abscond or threaten witnesses if released, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the balance of the relevant bail considerations favoured release on appropriate conditions

The High Court directed that Prafulla Kumar Behera and Prasanta @ Prasant Kumar Patro @ Patra be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.1,00,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court in seisin of the case and subject to such further terms as that court might impose

The specific condition imposed was that the petitioners must cooperate with the investigation whenever required

The Court expressly clarified that the order did not constitute any opinion on the merits of the case