Regular bail granted where investigation is complete, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No. 179/2023 registered at Police Station Mohgaon, District Mandla, for offences under Sections 409, 420, 419 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

He had been arrested on 23 August 2026 and was in judicial custody thereafter.

The prosecution alleged that the Block Medical Officer manipulated government records to withdraw payments meant for Asha workers and vendors; Piyush Pendre allegedly received part of the embezzled funds by impersonating a vendor, while a portion of the money was transferred to the applicant’s account.

The applicant subsequently remitted ₹2,44,122/-.

The applicant contended that he was not involved in the embezzlement, that the amount transferred to him had been remitted, that investigation concerning him was complete, and that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Several similarly placed co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail.

The State opposed bail on the ground of the gravity of the alleged financial offence and the applicant’s prima facie involvement, but acknowledged that he had no criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant, accused of receiving part of the allegedly embezzled public funds, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the completion of the investigation concerning the applicant, absence of criminal antecedents, lack of need for further custodial interrogation, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused justified his release?

What conditions should govern the applicant’s release on bail?

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

The alleged offences arose under Sections 409, 420, 419 and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(A) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In determining bail, the Court considered the prima facie nature of the allegations, the stage and requirements of investigation, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court also applied the principle of parity by considering bail granted to similarly placed co-accused.

Bail was made subject to attendance, non-involvement in similar offences, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and compliance with the provisions concerning examination of witnesses under Section 309 of the CrPC/Section 346 of the BNSS.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecution case prima facie connected the applicant with the alleged embezzlement because part of the funds had been credited to his account.

However, the applicant had remitted ₹2,44,122/-, the investigation relating to him was complete, and no further custodial interrogation was required.

The Court found substance in the applicant’s contentions without making any final determination on the merits.

It further noted that the trial would take time, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and there was no apparent likelihood of his absconding, repeating the offence, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

The grant of anticipatory bail to similarly placed co-accused also supported consideration of bail on parity.

On the cumulative assessment of these factors, the Court found no compelling reason to continue the applicant’s incarceration.

The bail was made effective until conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions requiring the applicant to appear on every hearing date, refrain from committing or becoming involved in a similar offence, avoid inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the facts, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and ensure compliance with the applicable provisions concerning examination of witnesses.

The Court clarified that breach of the bail conditions could lead the trial Court to consider cancellation of bail on merits.