Anticipatory bail can be granted when custodial interrogation is unwarranted, balancing individual liberty with public justice in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Diganta Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. This application has been preferred by the petitioner namely, Tushar Kasera under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and under Section 438 of CrPC, 1973, praying for pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with CBI/AC-II/New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC2172025A0019, dated 18.08.2025 under Sections 7,9,10 and 12 of the P.C. Act read with Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

3. It appears from the record that one Prayas Chakraborty, Deputy General Manager(Material), Duliajan, Oil India Limited was arrested in connection with RC.2172025A0012/AC-II/New Delhi on the allegation of accepting bribe from a Contractor of Oil India Limited and in course of his interrogation, it was revealed that he had received two gold chains from the petitioner on 12.04.2025 at Tinsukia as illegal gratification for favoring the firm namely, M/s Industrial Trade and Agencies owned by Sri Pradeep Kumar Kasera, father of the petitioner, against a tender worth Rs. 3 crores for the supply of Genset awarded to the said firm, which was processed by accused Prayas Chakraborty. The two gold chains had been recovered and seized by the CBI on 03.05.2025 in the presence of the said Prayas Chakraborty and independent witnesses.

4. It is further stated in the FIR that recorded intercepted call conversations between Prayas Chakraborty and the present petitioner as well as other documents collected during the investigation has prima facie established that the said Prayas Chakraborty had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner in lieu of the concerned tender, the value of which is Rs. 3 crores.

5. Mr. D.K. Das, learned, Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, though had initially sought to make out a case of the present FIR being a second FIR in respect of the same allegations, had subsequently emphasized on the fact that pursuant to interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioner had duly appeared before the I.O within the time fixed by the Court, which shows his intention to cooperate with the investigation and therefore, the only question to be considered is whether his custodial interrogation is necessary, more so, in view of the fact that the gold chains in question have admittedly been recovered as also the voucher in respect of the said gold chains and therefore, the investigation with regard to the specific allegation against the petitioner appears to be over. On the other hand, learned counsel representing CBI submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy in the absence of which effective interrogation of the petitioner may not be possible.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for CBI has referred to a number of authorities including the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 2025 INSC 320 wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:-

"23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the 11 sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.

24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society,