Bail granted where criminal case appears to be a counterblast to corruption complaint against investigating officers.

On 21.02.2026, a 1½-year-old child accidentally drowned in a water-filled pit used for brick-making.

The applicants alleged that investigating officers (A.S.I. Guru Prasad Yadav and S.I. Abdul Munaf) threatened to falsely implicate them for the death unless a bribe of ₹50,000 was paid.

Applicant No. 1 filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), leading to a successful trap and arrest of the police officers on 24.02.2026 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Subsequently, on 26.03.2026, an FIR (Crime No. 98/2026) was registered against the applicants under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for the child’s death.

The applicants, in judicial custody since late March 2026, moved the High Court for regular bail, contending that the FIR was a "counterblast" to the A.C.B. action.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of allegations that the FIR was registered as a retaliatory measure.

The Court primarily exercised its discretionary power under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of bail.

It considered the substantive charges under Section 105 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court evaluated the necessity of custody against the background of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 proceedings initiated by the applicants against the investigating officers.

The Court observed that the initial merg statement by the child’s father indicated the death was a purely accidental drowning while the parents were working nearby.

A critical factor in the court’s reasoning was the timeline: the applicants had successfully trapped the investigating officers for bribery through the A.C.B. just weeks before the current FIR was lodged.

The Court noted that the possibility of the present FIR being a "counterblast" to the corruption complaint could not be ruled out at this stage.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, the applicants had no prior criminal record, and they had already undergone nearly a month of incarceration.

It held that under the specific factual background and the likelihood of a retaliatory FIR, a case for bail was made out.

The applicants were ordered to be released on personal bonds of a sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at trial and non-misuse of liberty.

The office was directed to communicate the order to the trial court for immediate compliance.