1. This is first application under section 482 of BNSS. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No. 40/2019 registered at P.S. SPE, Lokayukt Indore for the offence punishable under sections 409, 120(B) of IPC and sections 7(B), 7(c), 13(1)(A), 13(1)(B) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant submits that applicant Subhash Chandra is aged 71 years. Earlier the trial court after filing of chargesheet in crime No. 40/2019 has issued summons to the present applicant. Now bailable warrant has been issued against him. He apprehends that whenever he appears before the trial court, he will be arrested and send to the custody. In this regard the order passed in connected case No.24599/2025 (Rajendar Singh Vs. Special Establishment Lokayukt) at crime No.36/2019 has been filed to buttress his arguments. It is further submitted that offence is related to Kapildhara Wells under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and amount of Rs.5,26,547/- is involved. The investigating agency has completed the investigation and chargesheet has been filed. The applicant has reasonable apprehension of his arrest, therefore the present application has been filed. It is further submitted that co-accused Rajendar Singh has been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 24599/2025 and by order dated 8.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 35225/2025, co-accused Baburam Narwariya has been given the benefit of anticipatory bail. Counsel further submits that applicant has no criminal antecedents except other cases registered against him in relation to same transaction in which applicant has already been granted bail.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent vehementally opposed the prayer on the ground that though it is a case in which the prosecution agency has filed chargesheet, however there is no apprehension of present applicant to be arrested as and when he appears before the trial court because initially the summons were issued and now the bailable warrant has been issued to him. He relied on the judgment in the case of Asheesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online All 4518 , HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. JJ Mannan (order dated 16.12.2009 in Cr.Appeal No.2415/2009) and Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the case of Asheesh Kumar(supra), the Allahabad High Court in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32 has held as under :

          30. Therefore, if a court issues a summons or a bailable warrant in a complaint case then it cannot be presumed that the person has a reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police or prosecuting agencies even if there is an accusation of committing a non-bailable offence in the complaint.

          31. So far as the judgement of the Apex Court in Bharat Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 77, judgement of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of P.V. Narsimha Rao (supra) and judgement of Patna High Court in the case of Muni Khatoon (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, this Court with great respect submits that these judgements are against the ratio of Constitution Bench judgement of Supreme Court in the case o f Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) as well as Sushila Aggarwal (supra) wherein it is clearly observed that apprehension of arrest in Section 438 Cr.P.C. (482 B.N.S.S.) must involve an arbitrary and unwanted arrest by the police. Therefore, when a person is taken into custody by the court upon appearing before it, in response to a summons, this cannot be classified as an arrest as mentioned in Section 482 B.N.S.S.

          32. Therefore, on the basis of above analysis, this Court holds the following :

          (i) In a complaint case involving accusation of a non-bailable offence, anticipatory bail is not maintainable upon the issuance of a summons, as there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without warrant;

          (ii) in the aforementioned complaint case, when a bailable warrant is issued, although the accused may fear the arrest in pursuance of bailable warrant but he will be released on bail on his readiness to provide it.

          Therefore, in such cases also, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as there is no apprehension of arrest and detention.

          (iii) In the event of a non-bailable warrant or proclamation issued in the above complaint case, anticipatory bail is typically not maintainable. However, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Srikant Upadhyay (supra), the court may grant pre-arrest bail in exceptional circumstances in the interest of justice.

6. The aforesaid case is based on a complaint case where summons and non- bailable warrant has been issued. The Allahabad High Court while discussing the relevant provision held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable as there is no apprehension of arrest and detention while in the present case chargesheet has been filed on behalf of Special Police Establishment Lokayukt. Similarly the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. was also arising out of a private complaint. The case of Shrikant(supra) is based on a different footing in which Hon. Apex Court has held that when a person is included in the chargesheet and Court issues summons to such person who is bound to submit himself and non-bailable warrant has been issued against him and process of proclamation under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. started, he cannot be held entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In the present case, the core question is whether the present applicant has any apprehension of arrest or not? The Special Police Establishment Lokayukt has filed the chargesheet under section 409, 120-B IPC along with other sections of Prevention of Corruption Act. Sec. 409 IPC is non-bailable offence and punishable with life imprisonment. Though trial court has issued summons and thereafter bailable warrant to the applicant, however, there is a reasonable ground to believe that there is apprehension of arrest as and when the applicant appears before the trial court keeping in view the nature and seriousness of offence and this is the reason of granting anticipatory bail in the case of Baburam (supra) by the co-ordinate Bench.

7. Since the investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed, the present applicant is not required for custodial interrogation, moreover in similar other cases which have been registered earlier against the present applicant, he has been granted bail and anticipatory bail, in the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present applicant is also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. In view of foregoing, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer/trial Court/Committal Court as the case may be.

9. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

          "i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required and will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

          ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

          iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

          (iv) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

          v) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

          vi) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, then this order shall lose its effect automatically."

Certified copy as per rules.