Bail granted in corruption-trap case where investigation was substantially complete and the maximum sentence was seven years.

The petitioners, government surveyors, were accused of demanding a bribe in connection with surveying the complainant’s land pursuant to a civil court order.

The complainant alleged that the demand of ₹10 lakhs was negotiated down to ₹5 lakhs.

On 21 August 2026, the petitioners were apprehended in a trap while receiving ₹2 lakhs in tainted currency.

They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Their bail application before the Trial Court was rejected on 1 September 2026, after which they sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

The alleged offence was under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on regular bail while facing prosecution under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitions were brought under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s power to grant bail.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for which the Court noted a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment.

In assessing bail, the Court considered the circumstances of the alleged trap, the stage of investigation, the petitioners’ custody and criminal antecedents, and the applicable punishment.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court considered the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioners had been caught receiving ₹2 lakhs in a trap, but also noted that in a trap case the major part of the investigation is ordinarily completed on the day of the trap, apart from awaiting the FSL report.

The petitioners had been in custody since 21 August 2026; the alleged offence carried a maximum sentence of seven years; and the prosecution did not dispute that they had no criminal antecedents.

On those circumstances, the Court found that bail was warranted, subject to conditions addressing attendance, witness interference, further offending and travel.

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, and to comply with conditions including regular attendance before the Trial Court, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, refraining from similar offences, and not leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.