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
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. (!) (!) (!)
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:-
9. Section 7 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:
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
Damodar Krishna Kamli vs. State
State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy
Manoj Narula v. Union of India
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra
K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh
Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail, the delicate balance between individual liberty and the requirements of a thorough investigation, and ....
Anticipatory bail must be approached with caution in corruption cases, particularly when involving public servants, as it can undermine public trust in justice.
The presumption of innocence does not alone justify anticipatory bail; public interest in corruption cases may necessitate its denial.
(1) Court should be slow in granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases.(2) Cancellation of bail must be done only for cogent and overwhelming reasons – Nevertheless, setting aside an unjustified ....
The court affirmed that individuals executing public duties for public entities can be classified as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, broadening the scope of accountability and....
The court established that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of corruption, and that the principle of ....
Point of law: Corruption in a society is required to be detected and eradicated at the earliest as it shakes “the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibra....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not prevent criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the charges involve higher proof standards; 'public servant' includes cooperati....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.