In Rajni Priya vs. The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the criminal appeal. The Court's 3-page long order reads: "The order dated 20.06.2025 of the High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant is set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court concerned may deem fit and proper to impose in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The appeal arises from a 4-page long order dated June 20, 2025 passed by Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court rejecting the bail prayer of the appellant in connection with RC Case No.14(A)/2017 corresponding Special Case no.12/2020. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution case was in respect of fraudulent transfer from account of the organization. It was contended that appellant acted as a co-signatory for a very short duration when allegedly there were limited unlawful transactions. Moreover, the other co-signatory had been granted bail. It was also contended that since appellant had already suffered over two years of incarceration; she being a lady was entitled to be released on bail pending trial.
The counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant but could not dispute that co-signatory has been granted bail and that appellant had already suffered more than two years of incarceration pending trial.
The High Court had heard the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner who was in custody in connection with R.C. Case No.14(A)/2017 corresponding to Special Case No.12 of 2020, under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(c)/(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna. 3. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11113 of 2024. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that charge was already framed against the petitioner in this case and he was in custody since August 11, 2023. He submitted that no purpose would be solved keeping the petitioner in custody and petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed.
Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13 [(1) reads: "A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-(a)if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or(b)if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office.Explanation 1. - A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.Explanation 2. - The expression 'known sources of income' means income received from any lawful sources.]" Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads:"Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
In his order, Justice Dr. Anshuman had concluded:"After going through the report of the stage of the Trial it transpires that there are total 26 accused persons in this case and charge has been framed on 28.02.2025, total 64 witnesses and 226 documents are on the record, which are the basis of the Trial. The Court of CBI has indicated that the Trial is likely to be concluded approximately within one and half years. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at present. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 8. It is directed to the CBI to adduce evidence of the material witnesses at the earliest preferably within six months."
Reversing Justice Dr. Anshuman's order, the Supreme Court observed:"...without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail pending trial at this stage."
