Regular bail granted after investigation concluded, given prolonged trial and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, aged approximately 57 years, was the Managing Director of Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Limited (KAPL).

The CBI alleged that he demanded illegal gratification amounting to 60% of the complainant’s firm’s commission for renewal of a Service Agency Agreement and allotment of additional institutions.

Following verification of the complaint, the CBI conducted a trap near Dravidam Café at Noida Metro Station, where the applicant allegedly accepted ₹5 lakh from the complainant.

The amount, consisting of phenolphthalein-coated currency notes, was recovered from his possession.

He was arrested and remained in judicial custody from 15 July 2026.

The CBI registered Crime No. RC0082026A0012 for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The investigation was completed and the final report was filed.

The CBI also stated that investigation into alleged accumulation of disproportionate assets was continuing.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegation that he was caught accepting a bribe under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Whether the applicant’s continued incarceration was justified when the investigation in the trap case had concluded, the final report had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time?

What conditions were necessary to secure the applicant’s presence at trial, prevent witness tampering, and ensure his cooperation in the pending disproportionate-assets investigation?

The Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to consider regular bail.

The prosecution alleged an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concerning acceptance or obtaining of undue advantage by a public servant.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the stage of investigation, the likelihood of the trial taking time, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the applicant’s personal and social circumstances.

The applicant relied on Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 1 SCC 500, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, in support of the principles governing bail where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and prolonged pre-trial incarceration is a concern.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecution case was supported by a recorded conversation, the alleged trap proceedings, and recovery of ₹5 lakh from the applicant.

Nevertheless, it held that the applicant’s defence contentions were not manifestly baseless and that the ultimate veracity of the prosecution evidence and the applicant’s complicity had to be determined at trial.

Since the investigation in the bribery case had been completed and the final report submitted, further custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The Court also noted that the applicant had no reported criminal antecedents, had substantial social and family roots, was approximately 57 years old, and that the trial would likely take time because of the number of proposed witnesses and the issues involved.

These factors outweighed the need for continued incarceration, while the risks identified by the CBI were addressed through stringent conditions, including surrender of the passport, a prohibition on leaving India, regular attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and monthly appearance before the Investigating Officer in the disproportionate-assets investigation.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring his appearance on every date of hearing, abstention from similar offences, prohibition against inducement, threats or tampering with evidence or witnesses, compliance with the provisions concerning examination of witnesses, cooperation in the disproportionate-assets investigation with appearance before the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month until completion of that investigation, and surrender of his passport with a prohibition on leaving India without permission.

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