Filing a chargesheet does not preclude anticipatory bail where a serious non-bailable offence creates apprehension of arrest.

The applicant, Ashok, aged 67 years, apprehended arrest in Crime No. 41/2019 registered at Police Station Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution related to alleged irregularities concerning Kapildhara Wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately ₹73,221.

The investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed.

Initially, the trial court issued summons to the applicant and subsequently issued a bailable warrant.

The applicant contended that he feared being taken into custody upon appearing before the trial court and relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons in connected matters.

The State opposed the application, arguing that issuance of summons or a bailable warrant did not give rise to a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail, relying on Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., HDFC Bank Ltd. v. JJ Mannan, and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar.

Whether the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of arrest so as to maintain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, despite the charge-sheet having been filed and only summons followed by a bailable warrant having been issued against him?

Whether, in view of completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s age, and the circumstances of the connected cases, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS governing anticipatory bail and considered the nature of the offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It considered the principle that anticipatory bail requires a reasonable apprehension of arrest, particularly an apprehension of arrest and detention by the police, as discussed in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

It also considered HDFC Bank Ltd. v. JJ Mannan, concerning the limited basis for anticipatory bail where process is issued in a complaint case, and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, which cautions against granting anticipatory bail where the accused has been charge-sheeted and coercive processes have been issued.

The Court distinguished complaint-case authorities and held that, in a police investigation involving a non-bailable offence under Section 409 IPC, the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case could establish a reasonable apprehension of arrest even where summons and a bailable warrant had been issued.

The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the State because they primarily concerned complaint cases, whereas the present matter arose from an investigation by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, followed by the filing of a charge-sheet.

Although the trial court had issued summons and thereafter a bailable warrant, the Court held that the applicant could reasonably apprehend arrest upon appearing before the trial court because Section 409 IPC is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life, and the nature and seriousness of the allegations made the apprehension genuine.

The Court also noted that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant was therefore not required for custodial interrogation.

His age, the grant of bail or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons, and the fact that he had received bail in other cases arising from the same transaction further supported the exercise of discretion in his favour.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Ashok be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, trial court, or committal court, as applicable.

The protection was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with interrogation and trial, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, non-commission of a similar offence, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

Violation of any condition would automatically terminate the protection.