Doubtful recovery from conscious possession and medical ailments justify regular bail in corruption cases.

The applicant, a Deputy Commissioner (Superintending Engineer) in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board, was arrested on February 5, 2026, following a trap organized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

It is alleged that the applicant demanded a bribe of ₹60,000 from a contractor in exchange for conducting physical verifications and recommending time extensions for construction projects at a New Tehsil Building and a residential school.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that he was falsely implicated due to the complainant's irregular work, that no tainted money was recovered from his physical possession, and that no chemical traces were found on his hands.

The applicant further highlighted his status as a differently-abled person suffering from polio and arthritis, and noted that he had already been placed under suspension.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the lack of physical recovery and his personal medical circumstances.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive charges were considered under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

Additionally, the Court referenced Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 84 and 351 of the BNSS regarding the conditions and consequences of bail forfeiture.

The Court observed that while the allegations involve the serious offence of illegal gratification, several factors militated in favor of bail.

Specifically, the Court noted the absence of "clear recovery" from the applicant’s conscious possession and the lack of chemical traces, suggesting that the prosecution's claims regarding demand and acceptance require detailed appreciation during trial.

The Court balanced the gravity of the public servant's alleged misconduct against the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been incarcerated since February 2026, and he is a differently-abled person with no prior criminal record.

Furthermore, since the applicant is under suspension, the risk of him influencing the official process was deemed significantly reduced.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to strict conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments during evidence; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates unless excused; and (iii) personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply would authorize the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty.