The court upheld that in corruption cases, especially with serious allegations, bail can be denied to prevent interference with ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

This is an application for regular bail filed by the sole accused in Crime No.03/2026 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Perused the case diary materials including the report filed by the Investigating Officer.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, 'the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018' hereinafter) by the accused. The prosecution case is that the accused demanded Rs.20 Lakh as bribe for processing the application put up by the de facto complainant for getting number to the building intended to be used as a warehouse in order to issue completion certificate and thereafter, ultimately the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.15 Lakh. In continuation of the same, as part of trap held on 24.02.2026, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.5 Lakh as well as the cheque for Rs.10 Lakh and he was arrested red-handedly by the Vigilance.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and the allegations are false. The learned counsel submitted that the decoy witness has animosity towards the de facto complainant and accordingly, this case is foisted. It is pointed out that the accused has been in custody from 25.02.2026 and taking note of the progress of investigation, he may be released on bail.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail in a serious case, where a huge amount of bribe was demanded, and a substantial sum of Rs.5 Lakh in cash along with a cheque for Rs.10 Lakh was demanded and accepted by the accused. Apart from that, the learned Special Public Prosecutor produced the report of the Investigating Officer. Paragraph Nos.2 to 14 of the report are relevant and the same are extracted as under:

“2 It is most humbly submitted that a case in VC 03/2026/EKM dated 24.02.2026 U/s 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 has been registered at VACB Ernakulam Unit based on the complaint of Sri.Sony Geoge, alleging that the accused/the petitioner herein Sri. Deepeshkumar T. Overseer. Vadavucode Puthencruz Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam District has demanded an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakh only) from the complainant for recommending to issue completion certificate for a warehouse constructed by the petitioner and his brother Rony in the limit of Vadavucode Puthencruz Grama Panchavath for that the complainant had submitted an online application through K smart on 21.01.2026 there by committed the offence punishable under section 7 (a) of PC (Amendment) Act 2018.

3. It is humbly submitted that on 24.02.2026, after completing the pre trap procedures including the preparation of Entrustment mahazar. The trap team including the defacto complainant and official witnesses proceeded to Kakkanadu After reaching near the Collectorate Kakkanadu, at about 08.15 PM, the defacto complainant called the accused over whatsapp and informed him that he is there nearby Collectorate, Kakkanadu, then the accused asked the defacto complainant to wait at the Southern side of the Collectorate building. At around 08.47 PM the accused came to the location by walk and as per the direction of the accused the defacto complainant went with him to the car of the accused bearing registration number KL.60W5199 in which the accused came to the location. And the car was parked outskirt of road margin of Kakkanadu Irumbanam bye road. Both of them entered into the ba