Prolonged incarceration and likely trial delay justify bail absent flight, tampering, or recidivism risks.

Rajeev Pandre, a Head Constable and former In-charge of the Malkhana at Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat, was accused of embezzling cash deposits and jewellery kept in the Malkhana.

Crime No. 628/2025 was registered for offences under Sections 49, 316(5), 317(2) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution relied upon documentary material, CCTV footage, disclosures allegedly made by the applicant, and recoveries made at his instance, including approximately ₹40 lakh in cash and jewellery.

The applicant was arrested on 14 October 2025 and remained in custody thereafter.

The investigation was completed and the final report was filed; charges had also been framed, but no prosecution witness had been examined.

His first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn.

The present matter was his second application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the applicant, who had been in custody for approximately ten months and whose trial had not commenced despite filing of the final report and framing of charges, should be released on regular bail.

Whether the seriousness of the alleged Malkhana embezzlement, the CCTV footage, and recoveries made at the applicant’s instance justified continued incarceration pending trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the settled bail principles that pre-trial detention should not become punitive, particularly where the investigation is complete, the evidence is substantially documentary, and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

The Court relied on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 12 SCC 1920, in support of the principle that an accused should not be detained indefinitely when the possibility of a prolonged trial exists and the risk of tampering or absconding is not demonstrated.

The Court also considered the statutory bail conditions relating to attendance, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and compliance with the requirement concerning examination of witnesses under Section 309 CrPC/Section 346 BNSS.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case through the CCTV footage, alleged disclosures, and recoveries, and that the allegations involved serious embezzlement of property kept in police custody.

However, the applicant had remained incarcerated since 14 October 2025, the investigation had concluded, the final report had been filed, and the charges had been framed.

Since no witness had yet been examined, the trial was likely to take time, and further custodial interrogation was not required.

The Court also noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, was approximately 45 years old, had a permanent residence and dependent family, and that the relevant evidence was largely documentary and already collected.

These circumstances reduced the perceived risks of absconding, recidivism, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court held that there was no compelling reason to continue the applicant’s incarceration during the pendency of the trial.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring his presence on every date of hearing, non-involvement in similar offences, and prohibition against inducing, threatening, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence.

He was also required to ensure compliance with the provisions concerning examination of witnesses in attendance.

The order was to remain effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to cancellation of bail in case of breach of the conditions.