Regular bail granted in corruption case where investigation was substantially complete and tampering risk absent.

The applicant, Girdhari Chaudhary, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. RC0082026A0013 registered by the CBI/ACB, Bhopal, for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that, while working as a Nursing Officer at AIIMS, Bhopal, the applicant demanded and accepted ₹12,000 from the complainant for facilitating the treatment of the complainant’s mother. Following verification of the complaint, the CBI conducted a trap operation and arrested the applicant on 24 July 2026. He remained in judicial custody thereafter. The applicant asserted false implication, completion of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, lack of need for further custodial interrogation, and the likelihood that the trial would take time. The CBI opposed bail on the ground of the gravity of the offence but acknowledged that the applicant had no reported criminal antecedents and that the final report was expected by 20 September 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Whether the applicant’s custody should continue despite the seriousness of the corruption allegation, considering the near-completion of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, personal circumstances, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of 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 allegation under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the maximum punishment for which was stated to be seven years.

The Court assessed conventional bail considerations, including the prima-facie nature of the prosecution case, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the possibility of absconding or recidivism, the stage of investigation, the applicant’s antecedents, and the expected duration of trial. It also considered the principles referred to in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2022) 10 SCC 51, concerning justified arrest and the need to avoid unnecessary incarceration.

The Court found that the investigation was almost complete and that further custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary. Although the allegation involved a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court held that the applicant’s contentions had prima-facie substance and that the truth of the prosecution case and the applicant’s complicity would be determined during trial.

The applicant’s age of approximately 36 years, employment as a Nursing Officer, responsibility towards dependent family members, and absence of criminal antecedents reduced the perceived risks of absconding, recidivism, witness influence, or evidence tampering. Since the trial was likely to take time and no compelling reason for continued incarceration was established, the balance of circumstances favoured release on bail, without any expression of opinion on the merits.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant to appear on every date of hearing, refrain from similar offences, avoid inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and comply with the applicable provisions concerning examination of witnesses in attendance. The order would remain effective until conclusion of trial, subject to cancellation by the trial Court in the event of breach of the bail conditions.