Formal arrest is unwarranted after charge-sheet filing where the accused was never arrested during investigation and only summons were issued.

The applicant, Anil Mahavi, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apprehending arrest in Crime No. RCO0082025A0005 of 2025 registered by the CBI, ACB, Bhopal.

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Deepak, then Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Barwaha Branch, executed 57 unauthorised electronic transactions from customers’ accounts into the applicant’s account during his tenure and thereafter used the transferred funds for his own purposes.

The offences alleged were Sections 120-B and 409 of the IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The applicant was not arrested during the investigation, which culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet. After cognizance, the Special CBI Court issued summons requiring his physical appearance; no arrest warrant was issued.

The applicant asserted that the entire amount involved had been recovered by the State Bank of India.

The CBI opposed anticipatory bail, contending that recovery did not establish innocence and that no exceptional circumstances existed.

Whether the applicant, who was not arrested during investigation and against whom only summons—not a warrant—was issued after filing of the charge-sheet, could seek and be granted anticipatory bail?

Whether the facts constituted exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail in a corruption case involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Whether formal custodial arrest after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet was necessary in the circumstances of the case?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing anticipatory bail, together with the conditions contemplated under Section 438(2) CrPC.

It considered the principle that anticipatory bail in serious corruption cases is ordinarily to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as where the accused appears to have been falsely implicated or the prosecution is frivolous or politically motivated, as stated in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320.

However, relying on Musheer Alam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 83, the Court applied the rule that once investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, an accused should ordinarily appear before the trial court and furnish bail; if custodial interrogation was necessary, the accused should have been arrested during investigation, and formal arrest thereafter is generally unwarranted.

The Court also considered Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, AIR 2013 SC 2216, cited by the CBI.

Although the allegations concerned unauthorised bank transactions and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the applicant had not been arrested throughout the investigation, had cooperated with the investigating agency, and the relevant bank records had already been secured.

The investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed; thereafter, the trial court issued only summons and no arrest warrant.

Applying Musheer Alam, the Court held that the investigating agency had consciously refrained from arresting the applicant when custodial interrogation could have been undertaken, making a subsequent formal arrest unnecessary.

The Court therefore found the case fit for anticipatory bail notwithstanding the general caution applicable to corruption offences.

The alleged recovery of the money was not treated as proof of innocence, but the completed investigation and absence of any demonstrated need for custody supported protection from arrest.

The applicant was directed to remain available for interrogation whenever required and to comply with the other conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.