Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a public servant accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification in a corruption case.
Analysis: The allegations disclosed a specific demand of illegal gratification in connection with GST proceedings, supported by the complaint materials, transcript, panchnama and investigation record. The Court treated the alleged role of the applicant as prima facie established and emphasized that corruption cases involving public servants require a strict approach. It held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in exceptional cases, and no special circumstances were shown to justify protection at that stage of investigation.
Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined to the applicant.
Final Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail was rejected and the interim protection earlier granted was vacated, with only a limited continuation of protection for approaching the higher forum.
Ratio Decidendi: In corruption matters involving a public servant, anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and a prima facie case of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification justifies of such relief.