Filing of Charge-Sheet Without Prior Arrest Negates Necessity for Custodial Interrogation During Post-Cognizance Bail Stage

The applicant, Raju Kumar Manjhi, sought regular bail after being implicated in a cyber-fraud network involving "digital arrests" and extortion.

The CBI alleged the syndicate defrauded a victim, Mr. Anshu Mittal, of approximately Rs. 48.56 lakhs.

Investigation revealed that a mobile number registered to the applicant was used to access the bank account of a shell company (M/s Sabir Enterprise) used in the fraud.

Notably, the CBI did not arrest the applicant during the investigation; he was only taken into judicial custody after summons issued by the Magistrate following the filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant’s prior bail applications were dismissed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court.

1. Whether an accused who was not arrested during the investigation and surrendered pursuant to summons is entitled to regular bail after the filing of the charge-sheet.

2. Whether the requirement for further investigation or custodial interrogation is a sufficient ground to deny bail once the primary charge-sheet has been filed and the evidence is largely documentary/electronic.

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

The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., which established that if an investigating officer does not arrest an accused during the investigation, there is "no point in making a formal arrest" after the charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken.

The court applied the settled principle that the primary object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial.

The court reasoned that since the CBI did not find it necessary to arrest the applicant during the entire course of the investigation, his subsequent incarceration after appearing before the Magistrate was unwarranted.

The court noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and played a limited role according to the charge-sheet.

The court dismissed the CBI's contention regarding the need for custodial interrogation, stating that such a plea cannot be the sole ground for denying bail once the investigation is complete and the case rests substantially on documentary and electronic evidence already in the state's custody.

The court observed that co-accused with more significant roles had already been granted bail, and the applicant had demonstrated his willingness to submit to the law by appearing in response to the summons.

The Court allowed the application and granted regular bail to the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, reporting monthly to the Investigating Officer, and not leaving the NCT of Delhi without permission.