SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 453

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Devinder Kumar Bansal - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Punjab – Respondent
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 Of 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2025

Anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, with mere solicitation of a bribe constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Anticipatory bail - Denial of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an Audit Inspector, accused of demanding illegal gratification related to audit work - Co-accused apprehended red-handed with bribe amount - Audio recording corroborates demand - High Court's denial upheld due to lack of exceptional circumstances. (Paras 2, 8, 21, 32)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Principles governing grant - Anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and can only be granted in exceptional circumstances - Mere demand or solicitation constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Act. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as an Audit Inspector, was accused of soliciting a bribe for conducting an audit related to development work. The High Court denied anticipatory bail based on strong evidence against him, including a co-accused caught red-handed and an audio recording of the demand.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to deny anticipatory bail was justified as the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such relief.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner deserved anticipatory bail in light of the evidence against him and the nature of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not a right and must be granted only in exceptional cases, reaffirming that mere solicitation of a bribe constitutes an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Denial of anticipatory bail to an Audit Inspector accused of demanding illegal gratification; High Court denial upheld due to lack of exceptional circumstances. (!) (!) - Anticipatory bail is not a right and can only be granted in exceptional circumstances; mere solicitation/demand of bribe constitutes an offence under Section 7 PC Act. (!) (!) (!) - Discussion of the elements required to prove an offence under Section 7 and its relation to Section 13(1)(a) PC Act; emphasis on "gratification" and that actual bribe exchange is not essential for offence. (!) (!) (!) - Court cites broader anti-corruption jurisprudence and emphasizes balancing individual liberty with public justice; anticipatory bail can be denied in corruption cases. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies that regular bail considerations differ from anticipatory bail considerations. (!) (!) - Observations on precedent relating to Section 6-A (CBI) and equal treatment of public servants in corruption cases. (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of anticipatory bail in Anticipatory Bail - Principles governing grant?

What are the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be denied in corruption cases?

What is the significance of Section 7 and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in granting or denying anticipatory bail?


ORDER :

1. Exemption Applications are allowed.

2. The High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with First Information Report No. l dated 08.01.2025 registered with the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner – herein is serving as Audit Inspector with the Government.

4. He is 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 Prithvi Singh actually collected the bribe amount for and on behalf of the petitioner – herein for the complainant.

5. Apprehending his arrest in connection with the offence, referred to above, the petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail which the High Court declined.

6. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner is here before us with the present petition.

7. We heard Ms. Sanya Kaushal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also looked into the materials on record. The learned counsel made a gallant effort to persuade us to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner, however, we had to convey to her with all humility at our command that she has come before us with a very weak matter.

8. The High Court in its impugned order, more particularly Para 5 has observed thus:-

    “On being put to notice on the previous date of hearing, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that 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.”

9. Section 7 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:

    “7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act

    Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

    Explanations. (a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

    (b) "Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

    (c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top