Bail is warranted where continued custody is unnecessary and flight or evidence-tampering risks are absent.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 535/2026, registered at Garha Police Station, Jabalpur, for alleged offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that cash received as IPD/OPD fees and student fees was misappropriated in conspiracy with others, and that an internal inquiry found a shortfall of Rs. 79,85,283 during the applicant’s period of work in the Medical College’s Cash Section.

The applicant, a stenographer, denied responsibility for the Cash Section, relied on the absence of a money trail or recovery, and submitted that the investigation was substantially complete, he had no criminal antecedents, and co-accused had been granted bail.

The order gives inconsistent custody dates: paragraph 1 records custody since 18 July 2026, while paragraph 5 records arrest on 18 August 2026.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail, having regard to the nature of the accusation, the material collected, and the circumstances relevant to continued detention.

2. Whether bail should be subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—identified in the order with former Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of regular bail.

The Court considered the accusation and its prima facie support, the stage of investigation, the likely duration of trial, the applicant’s antecedents and roots, and the risks of flight, reoffending, evidence tampering, or witness interference when deciding whether continued custody was necessary.

The order states no specific precedent governing those considerations.

The Court noted the allegation of a substantial cash shortfall but considered that the applicant’s contentions—that he was a stenographer rather than the officer in charge of cash, and that no money trail or recovery linked him to wrongful gain—had prima facie merit and were not manifestly baseless; the question of his complicity was left for trial.

It further relied on the expected delay in concluding the trial, the applicant’s age, social and family roots, lack of criminal antecedents, and the seizure of the relevant account books in assessing the risks of flight, recidivism, and interference with evidence or witnesses.

Finding no compelling reason for continued incarceration, the Court granted bail subject to safeguards.

The Court directed that Arvind Dhurve be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was conditioned on attendance at hearings; no similar offending; no inducement, threat, or promise to persons acquainted with the case; no tampering with evidence or interference with witnesses; and compliance with the applicable provisions concerning examination of witnesses in attendance.

The order remains effective until the end of trial, subject to possible cancellation for breach of conditions.