The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a regular bail application filed by Naveen Kedia in a corruption case investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), holding that a bail plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is not maintainable unless the accused is in judicial custody, either through physical surrender or lawful detention.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ruled that mere grant of interim bail or “constructive custody” cannot substitute the statutory requirement of physical surrender before the court for seeking regular bail. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that entertaining a bail application without custody would amount to an abuse of process.
The case arose from an FIR registered by the ACB under provisions of the IPC (now, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and criminal misconduct. The petitioner was arrested from Goa on January 7, 2026, and was granted interim bail for four days by a Sessions Court at Merces, Goa, to enable him to seek regular bail in Jharkhand. However, the regular bail was rejected on the grounds that the accused had not surrendered before the court physically
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that interim bail placed him in “constructive custody,” the Court, while referring to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559 and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 608, reiterated that custody under bail law requires either physical arrest or voluntary surrender before the court. The Court emphasised that if a person released on interim bail were treated as being in custody, “it would be a mockery of justice,” as bail presupposes detention.
The Court also upheld the trial court’s refusal to permit appearance through video conferencing, noting that under the Jharkhand High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, the first appearance of an accused mandatorily requires physical presence. It further observed that the petitioner’s failure to appear physically, coupled with non-compliance with interim bail conditions, reflected an attempt to misuse the protection granted.
Holding that a Sessions Court or High Court cannot assume jurisdiction to grant regular bail unless the accused is in custody, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order rejecting bail. Consequently, the bail application, along with connected interim pleas, was dismissed.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Madhav Khurrana, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Arpana Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Raj Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Xenia Dhar, Advocate, Ms. Vismita Diwan, Advocate.
Respondents- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate, Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate, Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate.
