Supreme Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of Punjab Audit Inspector, Citing Clear Evidence of Bribery and the Need for Stringent Action Against Corruption
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court has rejected a plea for anticipatory bail by an Audit Inspector employed by the Punjab Government, who faces allegations of accepting illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to deny pre-arrest bail, observing that the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting such relief.
The matter pertains to First Information Report No. 1, registered on January 8, 2025, with the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala. The petitioner, an Audit Inspector, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe in connection with an audit of development work carried out during the tenure of the complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. According to the prosecution, the alleged bribe was collected by a co-accused, Prithvi Singh, on behalf of the petitioner. The complainant recorded an audio conversation on the same day, purportedly capturing the petitioner’s confirmation of the transaction and instructions to transfer the amount to a third party.
The High Court, in denying the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail, relied on these materials, noting in particular the corroborative evidence presented through the recorded conversation. It observed: “The co-accused Prithvi Singh was apprehended red-handed while accepting the bribe and admitted that the amount was received on behalf of the petitioner. Furthermore, there was an audio recording dated 08.01.2025, which further corroborates the demand made by the petitioner. It has been argued that in the said recording, the petitioner is clearly audible confirming with co-accused Prithvi Singh whether the bribe was received in cash and further instructing him to transfer the amount to a third party, namely Naresh.”
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, penalizes public servants for accepting gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing or omitting an official act. The Supreme Court, referring to the statutory provisions, stated: “Mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word ‘attempt’ is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which may be made as effectually in implicit or explicit terms.” The Court reiterated that actual exchange of a bribe is not a prerequisite for prosecution, and even an indirect acceptance through an intermediary attracts liability under the Act.
The Court examined whether the parameters for granting anticipatory bail were met in the case at hand. It recalled its observations in State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, stating: “We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21.” The Court noted that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, such as when an accused is falsely implicated or the allegations appear politically motivated. It found no such considerations applicable in the present case.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that anticipatory bail should not be denied in the absence of a compelling need for custodial interrogation. The Court rejected this submission, stating: “The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.”
The Court also referred to its decision in CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, reiterating that courts must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, evidence, potential punishment, character of the accused, and likelihood of witness tampering when deciding bail applications. It recorded: “The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.”
Also Read: Police Cannot Issue Notice Of Appearance To Accused Via WhatsApp: Karnataka High Court
The judgment extensively discussed the broader societal impact of corruption, quoting Manoj Narula v. Union of India: “Corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law... It devalues human rights, chokes development, and undermines justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which are the core values in our preambular vision.” The Court reaffirmed the necessity of stringent measures against corrupt practices, citing K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh: “Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises, the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity.”
Dismissing the petition, the Court stated: “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.” However, it stated that if the petitioner applied for regular bail, such a request should be considered on its own merits, independent of observations made in the present order.
Case Title: Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 320
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
