Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail filed by two Municipal Corporation, Faridabad officials, holding that pre-arrest protection was not warranted at this stage. The Court was dealing with allegations that forged municipal work orders and fabricated dispatch entries were used to process bills and release payments for works that were not officially sanctioned or executed, with the alleged loss to the public exchequer running into more than Rs. 12 Crore. Noting that the accusations involve large-scale corruption, forgery of public records and diversion of public funds, Justice Goel observed: “The allegations against the petitioners pertain to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988… Corruption by public servant… constitutes and offence against the society at large eroding public confidence in the administration.”

The petitions were filed seeking anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR arose during the investigation of an earlier vigilance case relating to alleged forged municipal work orders concerning laying of interlocking tiles on public roads in Faridabad.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce 25% RTE Quota In Private Unaided Schools, Directs States/UTs To Frame Rules

According to the prosecution, original work estimates amounting to approximately ₹72.75 lakh were allegedly revised within a short period to about ₹12.18 crore. It was alleged that forged work orders were created, dispatch numbers were fabricated, and payments were released despite no official issuance of work orders or execution of work. The investigation indicated alleged involvement of municipal officials and a contractor, resulting in wrongful loss to the public exchequer and corresponding gain to private individuals.

The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, asserting that their roles were limited to clerical functions within the Accounts Branch and that they had no involvement in issuance of work orders, technical sanction, or execution of works. They further contended that the FIR was barred due to multiple FIRs on the same transaction and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the case rested on documentary evidence.

The Court examined the record and noted the nature of allegations and material collected during investigation. It observed that “the allegations in the present FIR pertain to a serious economic offence involving abuse of official position by public servants, forgery of public records, criminal conspiracy, and misappropriation of public funds exceeding Rs. 12 crore.”

The Court recorded that “corruption by public servant is not merely an offence against an individual but constitutes an offence against the society at large eroding public confidence in the administration.” It further stated that “economic offences and corruption cases are to be viewed with greater circumspection while considering pre-arrest bail.”

With respect to the defence that the petitioners’ role was clerical, the Court observed that “the contention raised by the petitioners that their role was merely clerical or procedural cannot be accepted at this stage.” It further recorded that “prima facie, the material on record indicates that the petitioners were part of the process through which forged work orders, manipulated estimates, and running bills were processed and cleared for payment.”

On custodial interrogation, the Court stated that “in cases involving forgery, manipulation of official records, electronic data, audit processes and conspiracy among multiple accused, custodial interrogation often becomes indispensable to ascertain the knowledge and intent of the accused and to trace the money trail.”

The Court also dealt with the plea of multiple FIRs and observed that “whether the FIRs arise out of the same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact which requires detailed examination at the stage of trial.” It recorded that earlier orders granting anticipatory bail in other FIRs “does not automatically entitle the petitioners to similar relief in the present case.”

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court quoted that “anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption can be granted only in exceptional circumstances.” It further observed that “the presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.”

The Court recorded that “the magnitude of the alleged loss to the public exchequer, the systematic nature of the offence, the position held by the petitioners as public servants and the reasonable apprehension that custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and effective investigation weigh heavily against the grant of pre-arrest bail.”

Also Read: Right To Shelter Rehabilitation Claims Must Be Assessed Holistically, Not Defeated By Hyper-Technical Objections: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Chandigarh Administration To Allot Flat To Orphaned Minor

The Court directed that “the instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate; Ms. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate; and Mr. Amtaj Sidhu, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Ms. Mahima Yashpal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Case Title: Vishal Kaushik and Another v. State of Haryana
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:002537
Case Number: CRM-M-55330-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel