Filing of a chargesheet does not preclude anticipatory bail where arrest apprehension remains reasonable.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest in Crime No. 40/2019 registered at Police Station SPE, Lokayukt, Indore, for offences under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2), read with Section 7(b), of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution case concerned alleged irregularities in the construction of Kapildhara Wells under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, involving approximately ₹5,26,547.

Investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. The trial court initially issued summons to the applicant and subsequently issued a bailable warrant.

The applicant contended that he apprehended arrest upon appearing before the trial court, although he was not required for custodial interrogation.

He relied on bail orders granted to co-accused persons and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents apart from other cases arising from the same transaction, in which he had already been granted bail.

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 trial court having issued summons followed by a bailable warrant?

Whether, after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the nature of the alleged offences, the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation, and the bail granted to similarly placed co-accused persons?

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, corresponding to the anticipatory-bail jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permitting pre-arrest bail where the applicant has a reasonable apprehension of arrest.

The Court considered the principles in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) that anticipatory bail addresses an apprehension of arbitrary or unwanted arrest by the police and must be assessed on the facts of each case.

It also considered Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, concerning the limited availability of anticipatory bail where court-issued processes have been issued, as well as Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 4518, which held that summons or a bailable warrant in a complaint case ordinarily does not create an apprehension of arrest justifying anticipatory bail.

The Court further applied the principle that where investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, anticipatory bail may appropriately be granted, subject to conditions.

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

Although the trial court had issued only summons and thereafter a bailable warrant, the Court held that the applicant nevertheless had a reasonable apprehension of arrest when appearing before the trial court, considering that Section 409 IPC is a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life and that the allegations also involved offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

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

It also took into account the grant of bail or anticipatory bail to co-accused persons and the applicant’s bail in other cases arising from the same transaction.

These circumstances justified extending protection under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The application was allowed, and it was directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant 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 relief was subject to conditions requiring cooperation with interrogation and trial, non-interference with witnesses, abstention from similar offences, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

Breach of any condition would automatically terminate the protection.