Supreme Court: Anticipatory Bail Can Be Granted If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Essential, Particularly When Allegations Hinge On Official Records

The Court dismissed former IAS Officer Pradip N. Sharma’s Appeal seeking quashing of the FIR but allowed his Appeal for anticipatory bail in the land allotment case noting that the offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an Order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The Bench upheld Gujarat High Court’s Order dismissing the Appellant’s prayer for quashing an FIR registered against him under Sections 409, 219 and 114 of the IPC.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale held that “it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pretrial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified.”

The Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appeared for the Appellant, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The FIR was lodged by the Mamlatdar Office (complainant), alleging that the Appellant, in his capacity as District Collector, had restored a government land to private allottees despite their ineligibility.

The land allotment had been previously canceled due to the allottees’ failure to cultivate the land as required. The complainant contended that the Appellant’s Order was passed with a view to unduly favour the allottees and without verifying the authenticity of the power of attorney holder representing them.

The Appellant had moved the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the allegations were frivolous and motivated. He argued that his decision was taken in a quasi-judicial capacity and did not amount to criminal misconduct. In 2018, the High Court dismissed his Petition, holding that the allegations required investigation and could not be quashed at the preliminary stage.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held “The prayer seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings is refused, as the allegations against the applicant involve serious allegations of misuse of official position, criminal breach of trust, and alleged corrupt practices in the discharge of public duties. The case against the applicant pertains to his passing an order that allegedly favoured private allottees despite their long absence from the country and despite his own transfer from the concerned jurisdiction.”

The Bench held that as the matter was to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court was inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Appellant.

“However, in the present case, the FIR and the materials relied upon by the prosecution prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, warranting a full-fledged investigation. Moreover, the allegations against the appellant cannot be adjudicated merely based on the pleadings and require scrutiny of official records and procedural compliance,” the Bench explained.

The Court remarked, “The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention.”

Consequently, the Court held, “The appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.2812 of 2019 is allowed. Further, we provide that the appellant upon arrest may be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal for granting anticipatory bail.

Cause Title: Pradip N. Sharma v. State Of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 291)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat; AOR Divyesh Pratap Singh; Advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Ajay Desai and Amit Sangwan

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Senior Advocate Maninder Singh; AAG Mitesh Amin; AOR Swati Ghildiyal; Advocates Kanu Agarwal and Neha Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment