Prolonged custody and delayed trial justified bail absent flight, recidivism, or evidence-tampering risks.

The applicant, Chandrakala Mahore, an Assistant Grade II working in the Office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Bargi, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. RC0092019S0013 registered by the CBI, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Her earlier bail applications had been withdrawn on 17 November 2025 and 26 March 2026.

The prosecution alleged that, during the absence of the Land Acquisition Officer, Sunanda Panchbhai, the applicant failed to notify the concerned banks of the change in charge and failed to forward the authorised signature of the in-charge officer, Frank Noble, IAS.

Forged and cloned cheques were thereafter allegedly used to withdraw land-acquisition compensation funds, which were siphoned off by co-accused persons.

The final report had been filed and the trial had commenced, but only 4 of 130 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences?

Whether the applicant’s prolonged custody, age, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation, and the anticipated delay in trial justified her release on bail?

Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case so compelling as to require the applicant’s continued incarceration pending trial?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the offences alleged under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The governing bail principles require consideration of the prima facie material, the seriousness of the accusations, the possibility of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the accused’s antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court also relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, recognising that pre-trial detention is not to be used as a form of punishment and that bail may be appropriate where the trial is likely to be prolonged and the accused is not shown to pose a substantial risk of absconding or obstructing justice.

The Court found that the applicant’s submissions had prima facie substance and could not be dismissed as manifestly baseless.

Although the prosecution alleged that she failed to communicate the change in charge and thereby facilitated access to the relevant bank accounts, the applicant disputed having custody of the cheques or any connection with the alleged forgery and diversion of funds.

The Court expressly left the truth of the allegations and the applicant’s complicity to be determined at trial.

Since the final report had been submitted, the investigation was complete; only 4 of 130 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making substantial delay likely.

Her age of approximately 62 years, employment as a government employee, family responsibilities, absence of criminal antecedents, and socio-economic circumstances reduced the likelihood of absconding, recidivism, witness influence or tampering with evidence.

In the absence of a compelling reason for continued incarceration, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court held that the balance of circumstances favoured bail.

The Court directed that Chandrakala Mahore be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was made effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions requiring her to attend each hearing, refrain from similar offences, avoid inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, comply with the applicable provisions concerning examination of witnesses, and not leave Madhya Pradesh without prior intimation to the investigating officer and the trial Court.

The trial Court was permitted to consider cancellation of bail on merits in the event of breach of the bail conditions.