Regular bail granted where investigation is substantially complete and further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The applicant, Kanhaiya Lal Rathore, a Senior Auditor in the Accounts Office, Central Proof Establishment, Itarsi, was prosecuted in Crime No. RC0082026A0014 registered by the CBI/ACB, Bhopal, for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The complainant alleged that the applicant demanded illegal gratification at the rate of 5% of pending bill amounts for clearing them.

A trap was conducted, during which the applicant was allegedly caught accepting ₹9,300.

The handwash and pant-pocket solutions were sent to the FSL, which reported traces of phenolphthalein.

The applicant’s voice sample was obtained, call-detail records were requisitioned, and witness statements were recorded.

He was arrested on 29 July 2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He denied demand and acceptance of bribe, contended that no bill was pending with him, asserted that he had cooperated with the investigation, and argued that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the trial would take time.

The CBI opposed bail on the ground that the voice-recording transcript indicated demand of bribe and that the applicant had been caught red-handed, but fairly stated that he had no criminal antecedents and that he was approximately 58 years old.

1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Whether the applicant’s custody was still necessary when the investigation was substantially complete, further custodial interrogation was not required, and the trial was likely to take time.

3. Whether the circumstances of the alleged trap, the FSL report, and the recorded conversation warranted refusal of bail at the pre-trial stage.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail, and considered the accusation under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act concerning demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The Court applied established bail principles, including consideration of the nature of the accusation, the stage and status of investigation, the necessity of further custodial interrogation, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, criminal antecedents, and the probable duration of trial.

It also considered the principles discussed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, as relied upon by the applicant.

Grant of bail was made subject to attendance, non-repetition of similar offences, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and compliance with the applicable procedural provisions regarding examination of witnesses.

Although the prosecution material prima facie indicated demand and acceptance of ₹9,300, supported by the voice-recording material and the phenolphthalein traces, the Court held that the ultimate veracity of that evidence and the applicant’s complicity would be determined during trial and could not be conclusively adjudicated at the bail stage.

The investigation-status report showed that the necessary investigation was almost complete; the applicant’s voice sample had already been obtained, call-detail records had been requisitioned, and witness statements had been recorded.

Consequently, further custodial interrogation was not considered necessary.

The Court further relied on the applicant’s age of approximately 58 years, his employment and family responsibilities, absence of criminal antecedents, and the absence of any apparent likelihood of absconding, recidivism, witness influence, or evidence tampering.

Since the trial was likely to take time and there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration, the balance favoured release on bail without expressing any final opinion on the merits.

Kanhaiya Lal Rathore was directed to be released in the concerned crime upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety for the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring his presence on every hearing date, abstention from similar offences, and prohibition against inducing, threatening, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence; he was also required to ensure compliance with Section 309 of the CrPC/Section 346 of the BNSS during trial.

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