The court established that when investigation is complete, the accused has no prior antecedents and is not a flight risk, detention should not continue as it amounts to pre-trial punishment, thereby violating the constitutional right to personal liberty.

ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with FIR being I-CR No.2 of 2026 registered with Anand ACB Police Station, Ananad for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. No antecedent is reported against the applicant. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[5.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and submitted that present applicant is involved in the offence. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

[6.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[7.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

(1) investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

(2) applicant is facing charge under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the present applicant, who was serving as a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), is that he was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of ₹30,000/-. It is alleged that the Complainant has entered into sell of contract with the original owner of a property and was in the need of opinion to get permission from the authority, he approached to the accused and the accused has demanded illegal gratification in connection with the per-recording conversation between complainant. The voice came to be recorded and sent to the FSL for voice spectrography test.

(3) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty;

(4) Applicant is behind the bars since 01.03.2026;

(5) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

(6) No antecedent is reported against the applicant;

(7) commencement of trial will take its own time;

(8) Nothing is required to further investigate the offence and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence;

(9) This Court has considered the quantum of punishment that the applicant was in the government service. Therefore, the question does not arise to flee away from justice. However, he conversant with the law as he was in the police force.

[8.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing bu