Jurisdiction for anticipatory bail in corruption cases lies with the High Court, not with the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023 moved by accused Nos. 4 and 5 in Crime No.VC3/2025/CRE of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Central Range, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the report along with relevant documents placed by the learned Public Prosecutor in detail.

3. The prosecution allegation in precise form as per the report of the Investigating Officer is as under;

“In pursuance of common intention of A1 to A6, all the accused conspired among themselves to commit a criminal act in pursuance of the same, the 2nd accused filed a false complaint to the Education Department against the complainant, who is a School Head Master set to retire on 31-03-2025 alleging embezzlement of Government funds allocated for school projects. Later A2 along with A3, coerced the complainant to meet A1, an educational department official in Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the complainant met A1 on 27-02-2025 at Hotel Town Tower, Thiruvananthapuram and while being there, A1 threatened to withhold the complainant's pensionary benefits unless he complied with their demands and pay money to settle the matter and further threatened to damage his image and personal life. In consequence of the same, the complainant transferred 25,000/- to A2 and 2,25,000/- to A3 via GPay. After that, A1 on 3-3-2025, through the mobile phone of A2, further demanded 15 lakhs as bribe, which was later reduced to 5 lakhs on 17-3-2025 due to financial constraints expressed by the complainant. Thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are PTA members of the school and in the FIR, there is no specific allegation raised against them. It is submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they are ready to co- operate with the investigation and also ready to obey the conditions imposed by this Court.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that in this case, prima facie, the role of A4 and A5 (accused No: 4 & 5) is made out and the trial court dismissed the anticipatory bail, plea holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary.

6. To be on the crux of the matter, it is true that there is demand of bribe at the instance of the 1^st accused and the prosecution allegation is that the demand was made as part of conspiracy hatched in between accused Nos.1 to 6. On perusal of the records, it could be gathered that accused Nos.1,2, 3 and 6 were arrested on 28.03.2025 and released on bail thereafter.

7. Having gone through the allegations herein, whereby the petitioners were roped into this crime, it could not be held at this stage that they are innocent persons. Therefore, the matter would require detailed investigation by questioning the petitioners. But going through the records of the case, custodial interrogation, after detaining them in custody, is found to be unwarranted. In view of the above, the petitioners can be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing conditions.

8. Before parting, it is necessary to address a legal issue brought to the notice of this Court while hearing the matter. It is noticed that the learned Special Judge considered the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and dismisse