This order does not decide whether the appellant committed any offence, does not treat the grant of bail as a finding on the merits, and does not fix any date for the trial. Bail is subject to bonds to the trial court's satisfaction and to the conditions stated in the order, breach of which may lead to cancellation.
- Case
- Manish Kushwaha v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal No. 5083/2026
- Outcome
- Criminal Appeal No. 5083/2026 allowed: the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 8 September 2026 refusing bail is set aside and the appellant is to be released on bail on the terms stated. The underlying corruption and cheating prosecution remains pending and undecided.
What the Court decided
On 28 October 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Manish Kushwaha and granted him bail, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 8 September 2026 by which his application for bail had been dismissed.
The Court reasoned that the charges have not been framed, the prosecution is still at the stage of securing the presence of the accused, and it is therefore clear that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Taking an overall view of the matter, it found that further detention of the appellant in custody may not serve any useful purpose, and it was inclined to accept the appeal and grant relief as prayed by admitting him to bail.
The appellant is to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. The appeal stands allowed on those terms, and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The prosecution and the High Court's refusal of bail
The appellant figures as an accused in FIR No. RC0082025A0006 dated 9 May 2025, registered at Police Station CBI/SPE, Bhopal, under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, and Section 61(2) read with Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was arrested on 8 June 2026.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by its impugned judgment and order dated 8 September 2026 in MCRC No. 41315/2026, dismissed his application for grant of bail. The Supreme Court's order records that it heard counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit of the Central Bureau of Investigation before deciding the appeal.
Leave was granted in the appeal, which arose out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17855/2026. The signed order is by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, and the record of proceedings confirms the same coram.
Where the trial stands
The order records that a charge-sheet under Sections 61(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was filed on 1 November 2025, and that there are 68 accused in all.
Against that, however, the charges have not been framed, and the prosecution is still at the stage of securing the presence of the accused. Those two facts together form the whole of the Court's stated basis for concluding that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.
The order does not discuss the strength of the prosecution case, the appellant's alleged role among the 68 accused, or any earlier bail history. This article therefore makes no claim about them either.
Why custody was not continued
The Court's reasoning is short and expressly framed as an overall view rather than an assessment of the merits. It does not hold that the prosecution case is weak, that the appellant is innocent, or that the charges will fail.
Instead, the reasoning turns on delay and stage: with charges unframed and the prosecution still securing the presence of the accused, continued custody pending a trial that is unlikely to conclude soon would, in the Court's view, serve no useful purpose. That is the only ground the order gives for interfering with the High Court's refusal of bail.
The order then guards that reasoning in terms: it clarifies that the observations made in the order and the grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. Any later argument at trial must therefore proceed unaffected by this bail order.
The conditions on release
Release is on bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, and subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. The Supreme Court itself adds three stipulations.
First, if released on bail, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court. Second, in the event of breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail. Third, the appellant shall diligently attend the proceedings of the trial unless exempted, and abstention without justifiable cause could also be seen as a breach of the conditions, leaving the trial court free to pass appropriate orders.
Those conditions, and not any finding on guilt or innocence, are what will govern the appellant's liberty between now and the trial. The order sets no time limit on the bail and no date for framing of charges.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This is a compact example of bail reasoning that turns on the stage of the proceedings rather than on the merits of the allegations. Note the structure: the Court states the prosecution's stage, draws the inference that trial will not conclude soon, and then treats continued custody as purposeless, without commenting on whether the charges are proved.
Note also the protective sentence at the end: bail orders routinely carry a clarification that observations are not findings on the merits, precisely so that neither side can later cite the bail order as a mini-verdict. When you read short bail orders, separate the stage-based reasoning from any merits discussion, and check whether the Court has insulated its observations in this way.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that further detention of the appellant would serve no useful purpose?
- What conditions did the Court attach to the grant of bail, and what follows from a breach of them?
- Why does the order expressly state that its observations are not findings on the merits?
