Petition for anticipatory bail, which was denied by the High Court. Bansal, an Audit Inspector, is accused of demanding a bribe related to a development audit, with a co-accused reportedly collecting the money. The Supreme Court upholds the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that such bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly in corruption cases where allegations are not frivolous. The judgment extensively cites legal precedents and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, explaining that even a “mere demand or solicitation” of a bribe constitutes an offense. The court also underscores the serious societal impact of corruption, referencing various prior judgments that highlight its destructive nature and the necessity for stern judicial action against it.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Denial of – Offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 –Petitioner alleged to have demanded illegal gratification in connection with conducting of audit pertaining to development work undertaken during the tenure of the wife of the complainant as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat – It is further alleged that the co-accused by name ‘P’ actually collected the bribe amount for and on behalf of the petitioner herein from the complainant –
Held that 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 – Presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail – The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for 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 – If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty – Held that the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner – Petition accordingly liable to be dismissed.
(Para 21, 23, 24, 32 and 33)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 – Corruption – Illegal gratification – Section 7 speaks of the “attempt” to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence – Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, 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, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms – Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law – Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively.
(Para 12 and 13)
Devinder Kumar Bansal V. State Of Punjab
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 320: (DoJ 03-03-2025)
