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

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Devinder Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


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 appear

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top