Back
Rats Ate the Bribe? Supreme Court Stunned, Grants Bail to Convicted Bihar Officer
In a corruption case with an unusually gnawing twist, the on , granted leave to appeal and suspended the sentence of Aruna Kumari, a former Child Development Programme Officer (CDPO) in Bihar. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan released her on bail while slamming the 's eyebrow-raising explanation for missing evidence: rodents devoured the seized Rs 10,000 bribe money.
The court exempted Kumari from surrendering earlier and ordered her release subject to conditions, but not before flagging systemic lapses in evidence handling.
From Acquittal to Conviction: The Rs 10,000 Bribe Saga
The saga began in when PW-5, a complainant, alleged that Kumari, then a CDPO, demanded and accepted a Rs 10,000 bribe. She faced trial under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the —public servant taking undue advantage and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
The acquitted her of all charges. However, the appealed to the , which in reversed the acquittal. Kumari was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 and 4 years under Section 13(2). She challenged this via Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7601/2025.
Media reports highlighted the High Court's peculiar note: the envelope of bribe notes, recorded in the PS Malkhana register, was destroyed by "rats and rodents" due to
"improper condition of Malkhana and lack of up-to-date preservation system."
Despite this, the High Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that other circumstances proved guilt beyond doubt, even without
.
Petitioner's Plea vs Prosecution's Stand
Kumari's counsel, senior advocate , argued before the apex court to challenge the High Court's reversal of acquittal and the conviction based on shaky evidence—particularly the mysteriously vanished currency notes.
The respondent, represented in the High Court proceedings, had defended the appeal by pointing to the Malkhana entry as sufficient proof of recovery, dismissing the destruction as a common mishap not fatal to the case. The High Court agreed, noting convictions can stand sans physical evidence if surrounding facts suffice.
A Judicial Jaw-Drop Over Evidence 'Eaten' Away
The Supreme Court bench dove into the High Court's paragraph 53, questioning the credibility of the rodent excuse. No precedents were directly cited in this interim order, but the court drew on broader principles of evidence integrity in corruption trials, emphasizing safe preservation of seized articles.
The bench underscored distinctions: while absence isn't always fatal, destroying state-recovered cash raises red flags on investigation quality. This wasn't mere procedural nitpicking—it highlighted potential prejudice to the accused and public trust.
Key Observations
"We are taken by surprise that the currency notes got destroyed by rodents."
(Para 8, Supreme Court order)
"We wonder how many such currency notes recovered in this type of offences get destroyed as they are not kept at a safe place. Its a huge revenue loss for the State."
(Para 9, Supreme Court order)
"Besides, the explanation offered for the destruction of the currency notes also does not inspire any confidence."
(Para 10, Supreme Court order)
"We shall look into this issue as and when the main matter is taken up for hearing."
(Para 11, Supreme Court order)
These remarks echo concerns in media coverage, like Live Law and IANS reports, portraying the rodent incident as emblematic of
"poor storage conditions in police malkhanas."
Bail Granted, Probe Promised: What's Next?
The court's operative order was unequivocal:
"Leave granted. The substantive order of sentence passed by the High Court is ordered to be suspended, and the appellant shall be released on bail subject to terms and conditions that themay deem fit to impose."
Kumari walks free pending final hearing, sparing her immediate imprisonment. Practically, this offers relief to a female public servant post-conviction, while signaling judicial scrutiny of evidence chains in Prevention of Corruption Act cases.
Longer-term, the bench's revenue loss critique could spur reforms in evidence storage nationwide, preventing future "rat-infested" debacles. The main appeal looms as a test for conviction sustainability without tainted physical proof.
