Grant of Regular Bail to Public Servant in Corruption Case Post-Filing of Charge-Sheet

The applicant, an Assistant Engineer at CSPDCL, was arrested on January 28, 2026, following a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

The complainant alleged that the applicant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 80,000/- for the installation of a transformer on agricultural land, subsequently accepting a partial payment of Rs. 30,000/-.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the complainant ignored outstanding dues on the land, and that the recovery of currency notes was a staged event where money was left under the pretext of official fees.

Following the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant sought regular bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the completion of the investigation and his custodial duration.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

The case involved an underlying offense under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court also referenced Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding conditions for bail, appearance before the trial court, and consequences of the misuse of liberty.

The Court evaluated the necessity of continued incarceration against the backdrop of the completed investigation. It noted that the applicant had been in custody since January 28, 2026, and possessed an unblemished service record of 11 years with no prior criminal antecedents.

The Court observed that since the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Furthermore, the Court found no reasonable likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The Court balanced the gravity of the corruption allegations with the fact that the applicant had already been suspended from service, thereby minimizing the risk of administrative interference during the trial.

It held that the applicant is entitled to release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties. The holding was subject to specific conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, a mandate for personal appearance during key trial stages (charge framing, evidence, etc.), and a warning that any violation of bail terms would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.