Bail granted to surveyor as custodial interrogation deemed unnecessary in grain embezzlement case involving false portal entries.

The applicant, a surveyor for a private firm (R.B. Associates), was arrested on 26.03.2026 in connection with Crime No. 22/2026 at P.S. Majholi.

An inspection by the Food Department at Shreeji Warehouse revealed that the warehouse in-charge and a computer operator had made fraudulent entries of 14,934.50 quintals of food grains on the e-procurement portal without physical availability.

The applicant is accused of failing to report these discrepancies despite making entries in his own register.

The applicant filed this first bail application contending false implication based on suspicion and that the investigation regarding him is nearing completion.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the accusations and the duration of custody.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges involve Sections 316(2) (Criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (Cheating), and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court relied on established principles regarding bail: the necessity of custodial interrogation, the risk of tampering with evidence, the socio-economic status of the accused, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or committing further offences.

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence, the applicant has no prior criminal history and has been in custody since March 2026.

The Court noted that the primary allegations involved the Warehouse in-charge and a Computer Operator making false portal entries; the applicant's alleged role was a failure to report these entries.

The Court reasoned that since the prosecution’s case is largely based on documentary stock entries, there is minimal risk of the applicant tampering with evidence.

It found substance in the argument that custodial interrogation was no longer required as the investigation was nearly complete, and the trial would likely be prolonged.

Furthermore, as a 30-year-old with family responsibilities and a stable job, the applicant did not appear to be a flight risk.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and do not reflect on the final merits of the trial.