Madhya Pradesh HC Grants Bail to BSNL Chief Engineer in CBI Bribery Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has paved the way for the release of a senior BSNL official, ruling that prolonged judicial custody is unwarranted when the investigation has reached an advanced stage and the accused poses no risk of recidivism. In a significant decision concerning the P.C. Act, 1988, the court emphasized that the socio-economic status and lack of criminal antecedents of the applicant weighed heavily in favor of granting liberty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar heard the first bail application filed by Awanish Kumar Shukla, a Chief Engineer in the Electrical Department of BSNL, who was arrested by the CBI. The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.) in connection with allegations of demanding illegal gratification.

Key Takeaways

Advanced Stage of Investigation

Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary as the CBI had already conducted relevant seizures and voice sampling, with the final report being imminent.

Individual Liberty vs. Gravity of Offence

While the CBI argued the gravity of the corruption charges, the court prioritized the 58-year-old applicant's unblemished service record and family responsibilities.

No Risk of Evidence Tampering

Given the documentary nature of the evidence already in the CBI's possession, the court found no likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with records.

Court Observations on Custody and Investigation

The court noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since late August 2026. While the respondent-CBI opposed the bail citing recorded conversations and the recovery of tainted currency, the bench observed that the veracity of these claims is a matter for trial. The court, in its reasoning, observed: "The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant have prima-facie substance and cannot be dismissed as manifestly baseless. The veracity of prosecution and complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence will be determined after evidence in the trial. As informed, the applicant is aged around 58 years... considering the socio-economic status of the applicant, there appears to be no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence."

Directives Issued to the Trial Court

The Court has following directions:

"(1) Applicant shall remain present on every date of hearing as may be directed by the concerned court;

(2) Applicant shall not commit or get involved in any offence of similar nature;

(3) 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 them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer;

(4) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness;

(5) During trial, the applicant shall ensure due compliance of provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C./346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding examination of witnesses in attendance."

Ratio

In matters of regular bail where the investigation has significantly progressed and custodial interrogation is no longer required for the collection of evidence, the court must balance the gravity of the offence with the right to liberty, particularly when the accused has no criminal history and shows no propensity to flee or subvert the legal process.

Background

The case originated from a complaint by Atul Kumar Mishra, who alleged that the applicant demanded a 2% commission (equivalent to Rs. 93,00,000/-) for processing pending bills of the complainant's firm. Following a trap proceeding, the CBI alleged the recovery of Rs. 75,000/- in tainted notes from the applicant's office table. The applicant's counsel argued that the traces of phenolphthalein were not found on his hands and the notes were not in his physical possession.

The applicant was charged under Section 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988. Taking into account that the applicant had no prior criminal record and the trial would take considerable time to conclude, the High Court allowed the application for bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and stringent conditions.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46122 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010693622026
Case Title: Awanish Kumar Shukla Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Ajay Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Tanmay Shukla - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 32662