The Supreme Court held that the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The court must primarily consider the prima facie case and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial and rendering detailed findings on evidence at the anticipatory bail stage.
Facts Of The Case:
An IPS officer, holding the post of Additional Director General of Police in Andhra Pradesh, was accused of manipulating tenders and misappropriating public funds. The allegations involved two key transactions. First, an agreement for awareness camps on the SC/ST Act was signed on January 30, 2024, and the entire payment was approved on the very same day without any verification of the work done. Second, laptops were purchased without a mandatory e-procurement tender for amounts exceeding one lakh rupees, with payment released within a week. The state alleged the awareness camps were largely not conducted as billed, with most held in free government premises and no external services procured. The officer was subsequently suspended. He approached the High Court, which granted him anticipatory bail, noting procedural violations but finding no prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and ruling custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State appealed this grant of pre-arrest bail to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with the respondent, an IPS officer, apprehending arrest and thus filing a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to CrPC Section 438) for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 30.01.2025 in Criminal Petition No.58 of 2025, granted him anticipatory bail. The State of Andhra Pradesh, aggrieved by this order, filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4354 of 2025 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, heard the matter, and subsequently allowed the State’s appeal. The Court set aside the Impugned Order of the High Court and quashed the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Rules: “Right to Prefer an Appeal” Includes “Right to Prosecute it” for Victims
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in conducting a detailed examination of the evidence and rendering definitive findings on the merits of the case at the anticipatory bail stage, which was inappropriate as it could prejudice the ongoing investigation. It reiterated the legal principle that the mere absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that the primary considerations must be the existence of a prima facie case against the accused and the nature and gravity of the offence. The Bench agreed with the State’s contention that the allegations, which indicated serious procedural violations and a potential misuse of official position by a high-ranking officer, were not suitable for pre-arrest bail. The Court also clarified that the investigating agency must act in a non-partisan manner and that its observations would have no bearing on the final merits of the case.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Consequently, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent IPS officer was quashed. The Court held that the facts and allegations were not suitable for the grant of pre-arrest bail. However, granting a concession, the Court provided the respondent four weeks to surrender before the concerned court and apply for regular bail, which must be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations in this Order. The Court also clarified that the prosecution is at liberty to seek custodial interrogation before the Trial Court, which must consider all prayers impartially. All aspects of the case, both legal and factual, were left open to be argued before the appropriate forum.
Download The Judgement Here