Section 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences Under BNS Requires Proof of Cooperation, Not Just Absence of Criminal Antecedents : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to an accused in an economic offence case, underscoring the importance of cooperation with investigation and the absence of flight risk. The judgment reaffirms that even in serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of the allegations when the accused has participated in the investigation and charge sheet has been filed.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Manu T.J., a former employee of M/s. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd., was accused of issuing unauthorized credit notes to a distributor, allegedly causing a loss of Rs. 7,87,48,000 to the company. The Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru, registered Crime No. 564/2025 against him and others for offences punishable under Sections 316(4) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was employed as a Customer Excellence Specialist from 15.07.2021 onwards.
• The first information was lodged on 08.10.2025 by Rakesh Balan, an authorized representative of M/s. Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
• The petitioner apprehended arrest and filed Crl.Misc.No.2840/2026, which was dismissed on 08.04.2026.
• The petitioner participated in the investigation, and his statement was recorded on 27.10.2025.
• He appeared before the Investigation Officer on 27.10.2025, 28.10.2025, 31.10.2025, and 13.01.2026.
• The investigation was completed, and a charge sheet was filed. The case is pending as C.C.No.15896/2026 before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
• A non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against the petitioner for failing to appear before the Trial Court after the charge sheet was filed.

Procedural History

• 08.10.2025: FIR registered (Crime No. 564/2025) for offences under Sections 316(4), 318(2), and 336(3) of BNS, 2023.
• 27.10.2025: Petitioner’s statement recorded by the Investigation Officer.
• 08.04.2026: Crl.Misc.No.2840/2026 dismissed by the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
• 2026: Charge sheet filed, and the case was registered as C.C.No.15896/2026.
• 2026: NBW issued against the petitioner for non-appearance before the Trial Court.
• 08.06.2026: Present criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking anticipatory bail.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• The offences are triable by a Magistrate, with a maximum punishment of seven years.
• The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and had participated in the investigation.
• He was granted interim anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and appeared before the Investigation Officer on multiple occasions.
• The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed.

For the Respondent/Defacto Complainant

• The investigation is still pending, and the charge sheet filed is preliminary.
• The petitioner did not cooperate fully with the police.
• There is a serious flight risk, and an NBW was issued against him.
• Additional documents are yet to be recovered, and the involvement of other persons is still under investigation.
• The parameters for granting anticipatory bail in economic offences are stricter.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 564/2025.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether anticipatory bail could be granted under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in an economic offence case where the accused had participated in the investigation, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel relied on the precedent set in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2011) 1 SCC 694], arguing that custodial interrogation should be avoided when the accused has cooperated with the investigation and is not likely to abscond. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigation Officer on multiple occasions and that the investigation was complete.

For the Respondent

The defacto complainant’s counsel opposed the petition, contending that the investigation was still pending and that the petitioner had not fully cooperated. The counsel argued that there was a flight risk and that additional documents were yet to be recovered. The parameters for granting anticipatory bail in economic offences, according to the counsel, are stricter and require a higher threshold.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the material on record and noted that the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and had participated in the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner’s statement was recorded on 27.10.2025, and he had appeared before the Investigation Officer on multiple dates. The charge sheet had been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation.

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, which emphasized that arrest at the pre-conviction stage carries serious consequences for the accused and their family. The Court noted that the offences were triable by a Magistrate, with a maximum punishment of seven years, and that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The NBW was issued solely because the petitioner had not appeared before the Trial Court after the charge sheet was filed, which was attributed to the rejection of his anticipatory bail application.

The Court held that the apprehensions raised by the defacto complainant could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions on the petitioner while granting anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and the completion of the charge sheet warranted the grant of anticipatory bail.

"A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage."

The Court also referred to subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, including Bijender vs. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl.)No.1079/2024] and Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [SLP(Crl) No.20215/2025], which reiterated the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.
2. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court unless exempted for valid reasons.
3. The petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the police for further investigation.
4. The petitioner shall not involve himself in similar offences in the future.
5. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Trial Court on the day he appears to execute his personal bond and furnish sureties.
6. The petitioner’s passport shall remain subject to further orders from the Trial Court.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Cooperation with Investigation Is Critical

• Courts are increasingly inclined to grant anticipatory bail when the accused has cooperated with the investigation, participated in recording statements, and the charge sheet has been filed.
• The completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet significantly weaken the prosecution’s argument of flight risk or non-cooperation.

Economic Offences Do Not Automatically Preclude Bail

• While economic offences are serious, the grant of anticipatory bail is not automatically negated if the accused has no criminal antecedents and has cooperated with the investigation.
• The Court emphasized that the consequences of arrest at the pre-conviction stage are severe and must be weighed against the accused’s conduct.

Conditions Can Address Prosecution’s Apprehensions

• The Court demonstrated that concerns raised by the prosecution, such as flight risk or tampering with evidence, can be addressed through stringent bail conditions.
• Conditions like surrendering the passport, regular appearance before the Court, and cooperation with the police can mitigate the prosecution’s apprehensions.