Liquor Scam | Regular Bail Application While On Interim Bail Not Maintainable; Accused Must Be In 'Custody' U/S 483 BNSS: Jharkhand High Court
Rushil Batra
4 Feb 2026 11:36 AM IST
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a person who has been granted interim bail cannot be treated as being in “custody” for the purposes of seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), unless the accused is actually in judicial custody or has surrendered before the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a regular bail application filed by the petitioner in connection with ACB Case No. 09 of 2025. The present application seeking regular bail was filed in connection with FIR dated 20 May 2025, registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 107 and 109 of the IPC (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), as well as under Sections 7(c), 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background:
The petitioner was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 07 January 2026 from Goa and was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Merces, Goa on 08 January 2026. On the same day, while considering a transit remand application, the Sessions Court granted the petitioner interim bail for four days, expiring on 12 January 2026. The interim bail was subject to conditions, including that the petitioner would surrender before the Investigating Officer and that upon such surrender, he would be taken into police custody. It was later recorded by the Sessions Judge that the petitioner had violated the conditions of interim bail by not surrendering.
The threshold question of maintainability arose on account of an office objection, which flagged a defect in the petitioner's vakalatnama, as it did not bear the stamp of the Jail Superintendent.
The petitioner contended that once interim bail had been granted, he was in the “constructive custody” of the Court, and therefore, his regular bail application ought to have been considered on merits. The State opposed the application, submitting that the petitioner had filed the bail petition without complying with the conditions of interim bail. It was argued that, under Section 483 of the BNSS, a bail application can be entertained only when the accused is actually in custody, and that custody necessarily presupposes the physical presence of the accused before the Court.
The High Court held that after the grant of interim bail by the Sessions Judge, Merces, Goa, the petitioner neither complied with the directions nor appeared before the competent court in Jharkhand. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court without surrendering and without complying with the interim bail directions. In this view, the Court held that the petitioner had filed the regular bail application without being in judicial custody, and that the present case amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The Court noted:
“In view of the above discussions, it is crystal clear that the Custody means when a police officer arrests a person, produces him before the learned Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody, he can be stated in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court and submits to its directions. If a person who has been released on bail is treated in custody, then it will be a mockery of justice. The bail always presupposes custody and can be granted only when a person is detained.”
Clarifying the scope of Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), the Court held that an application for regular bail can be made only by a person who is already in custody, and unless a person is in custody, the question of entertaining a bail application under the said provision does not arise.
In deciding the case, the Jharkhand High Court also distinguished a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jitendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it had been held that, for the purpose of grant of bail, custody may not always mean “physical custody.” The Jharkhand High Court observed that the said decision had been rendered without considering binding precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 608.
The petitioner had also contended that, at the stage of hearing of his regular bail application, he had sought to appear through video-conferencing. Rejecting this submission, the Jharkhand High Court held that Rule 4.3 of the Jharkhand Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 permits an accused to appear through video-conferencing except for the first appearance, which mandatorily requires physical presence before the Court. In view of the said Rule, the High Court held that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly declined to permit the petitioner to appear virtually.
Thus, the High Court held that the office had rightly pointed out the defect, and that the same could not be ignored. Consequently, the application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
Title: Naveen Kedia v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: B.A. Filing No. 980 of 2026.
Appearance: Senior Advocates Mr. Siddharth Agarwal and Mr. Madhav Khurrana, assisted by Ms. Arpana Sharma, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Mr. Saurav Raj Sharma, Mr. Xenia Dhar and Ms. Vismita Diwan, appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Ms. Shruti Shekhar and Ms. Nidhi Lall appeared for the State.