Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9264
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SRI D A SRINIVAS – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH INVESTIGATION OFFICER – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 961 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS))
Bail is the general rule even in grave economic offences. Where the investigation is document-centric and concluded, and evidence has been secured, custodial detention is inconsistent with personal liberty unless necessary to prevent tampering or ensure the accused's appearance at trial.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and 260 - Bail - Economic offences - Principles governing grant of bail.
(B) Bail jurisprudence - The fundamental principle is that grant of bail is the rule and jail is an exception - While economic offences are regarded as grave and sensitive, they do not create an automatic bar to the grant of bail - Court must weigh the gravity of the offence against the individual’s right to liberty and ensure that the accused’s presence at trial is secured. (Paras 25-27)
(C) Criminal antecedents - The existence of pending criminal cases or past involvements cannot serve as a solitary ground for the denial of bail - Judicial assessment must consider the specific merits and facts of the present case. (Paras 32-33)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail concerning charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and the use of counterfeit government stamps. The investigation was document-centric and already at an advanced stage. Previous investigations by state agencies regarding the same incidents had resulted in closure reports. The petitioner claimed to have cooperated with the central investigative agency and emphasized that all relevant documents had been secured and seized, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary. The petitioner also argued for parity with co-accused persons who had been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation was primarily focused on documentary evidence and forensic reports, which were already in the possession of the investigating agency. There were no further requirements for custodial interrogation as the main portion of the investigation was concluded. The court noted the principles of parity and the fact that continued incarceration would be punitive rather than preventative.
Issues: Whether the nature of the alleged economic offence and the past criminal history of the accused necessitate the denial of bail, and whether the advancement of the investigation into a document-centric matter warrants continued custody.
Ratio Decidendi: When an investigation is primarily based on documents and such evidence has been seized, the necessity for custodial detention diminishes. Even in cases involving grave economic offences, bail remains the rule unless the prosecution establishes that the accused will tamper with evidence or obstruct trial proceedings. Given the completion of major investigative steps and the availability of the accused for trial, the interest of justice is served by granting bail with stringent conditions.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted with conditions.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.9 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail in Crime No.RC07(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/Chennai registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259 and 260 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI and learned Senior Counsel appearing for de-facto complainant.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that earlier there were two complaints registered against the petitioner in Crime Nos.148/2020 and 89/2020. In both crimes, the matter has been investigated by Special Investigation Team. In Crime Nos.89/2020 and 148/2020, the 'B' report has been filed. The charge sheet has not been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner earlier had been granted anticipatory bail in both Crime Nos.148/2020 and 89/2020. There is no allegation against this petitioner of violating any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail in both cases. Subsequently, PCR No.51691/2020 has been filed, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and ordered investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The said investigation is referred to police under Section 202 (1) and police filed 'B' report. Thereafter, W.P.No.7784/2022 has been filed seeking transfer of investigation. Pursuant to the order dated 28.04.2021 passed in W.P.No.4333/2021, the investigation of all the three crimes came to be transferred to Special Investigation Team headed by the Officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. After detailed investigation, the Special Investigation Team has filed 'B' closure report in Crime Nos.89/2020 and 148/2020, contended that no prosecutable material was available to proceed further in the matter against the petitioner and his other companion accused. The Special Investigation Team conducted the investigation in Crime No.7/2021 and submitted detailed charge sheet against 08 accused persons on 03.01.2022 before jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court took cognizance and registered case in C.C.No.544/2022 and committed the matter to the Sessions Court, now pending in S.C.No.1522/2022 and presently the said case is transferred back to jurisdictional Magistrate and it is pending consideration. The petitioner's statement was also recorded by the Special Investigation Team during investigation and he completely cooperated for the investigation of the said crime.
4. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the subsequent direction issued by the Hon'ble Court dated 03.09.2022 in W.P.7784/2022, further investigation was entrusted to the respondent - CBI, pursuant to which the present case i.e., Crime No.7/2021 came to be re- registered as RC 7(S)/2022 for offences under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 420 of I.P.C., against unknown persons. The petitioner and others filed SLP Nos.10449/2022 and 10515/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7784/2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court has stayed the investigation of the case vide order dated 14.11.2022 and thereafter, was pleased to dismiss both the SLP's on 23.04.2025 while directing the respondent - CBI to conclude the investigation within eight months from the date of receipt of the order. Now the said eight months time is over. The petitioner came to be arrested on 22.12.2025 two days prior to completing of the said 08 months. The petitioner has furnished all the documents available with him with his letters dated 30.07.2025, 03.09.2025, 24.09.2025 and the said documents have been seized under seizure memo under which 15 documents have been seized and they have been handed over by the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in counterfeiting of stamp paper as he has purchased the stamp paper through his employee and he not knows who forged the stamp paper. In the earlie
