TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Anticipatory bail denied in corruption case involving illegal gratification during wife's tenure as Sarpanch under Section 7</h1> <h3>Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus The State of Punjab</h3> Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus The State of Punjab - 2025 INSC 320 The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the grant of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of corruption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The principal issues include:(i) Whether the petitioner, a public servant, is entitled to anticipatory bail in a serious corruption case involving alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.(ii) The interpretation and application of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly regarding the offence of accepting or attempting to obtain gratification other than legal remuneration.(iii) The scope and ambit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially in cases involving serious offences like corruption.(iv) The parameters and principles governing the grant or denial of anticipatory bail in corruption cases, including the balancing of individual liberty against public interest and the fight against corruption.(v) The relevance and weight of evidence such as co-accused's confession and audio recordings corroborating the demand and acceptance of bribe in the context of anticipatory bail.Issue-wise detailed analysis:1. Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail in Corruption CasesThe legal framework governing anticipatory bail is Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a statutory provision and not an inherent constitutional right under Article 21. The Court reiterated the principle that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right but is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. The Court referred to precedents emphasizing that in serious offences such as corruption, anticipatory bail should be granted only if the accused can show prima facie that the allegations are frivolous, false, or politically motivated.The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail. The High Court rightly declined anticipatory bail on the basis of strong prima facie evidence against the petitioner, including the apprehension of the co-accused red-handed with the bribe and corroborative audio recordings. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is only one factor and must be balanced against the cause of public justice.2. Interpretation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Section 7 criminalizes a public servant accepting or attempting to obtain gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. The Court elaborated that the offence includes not only the actual acceptance of a bribe but also the attempt or agreement to accept gratification. Mere solicitation or demand suffices to constitute an offence under this provision.The Court referred to authoritative precedents, including a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court and the Bombay High Court, which held that the demand or agreement to accept a bribe constitutes a completed offence, irrespective of whether the gratification was actually received. The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 7 does not require proof of actual exchange of bribe; an attempt or solicitation is sufficient.The Court also noted the explanatory clauses of Section 7, clarifying that 'gratification' is not restricted to pecuniary benefits and 'legal remuneration' includes all remuneration permitted by the government or organization served.3. Evaluation of Evidence and Application of Law to FactsThe High Court's decision to deny anticipatory bail was supported by strong evidence: the co-accused was caught red-handed accepting the bribe and admitted it was on behalf of the petitioner; an audio recording corroborated the demand and instructions relating to the bribe. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the case was weak or frivolous.Applying the law to the facts, the Court observed that the petitioner's conduct prima facie constituted an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The presence of corroborative evidence justified the denial of anticipatory bail as the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and the strength of the prima facie case.4. Principles Governing Grant of Anticipatory Bail in Serious OffencesThe Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It referred to the Indian Law Commission's recommendation that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that denial of anticipatory bail violated the right to life and liberty under Article 21, clarifying that anticipatory bail is a statutory right and not an essential component of Article 21.The Court highlighted the need to balance the accused's liberty with the larger public interest in curbing corruption. It stressed that 'over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.'5. The Seriousness of Corruption and Public InterestThe Court extensively discussed the pernicious effects of corruption on governance, democracy, and economic development. It cited several precedents underscoring that corruption is an enemy of the nation and must be confronted with a strong hand regardless of the status or position of the public servant involved.The Court emphasized that corrupt public servants, whether junior or senior, are 'birds of the same feather' and must be treated equally under the law. It quoted authoritative judgments that corruption erodes the rule of law, undermines justice, and threatens constitutional governance.The Court underscored the societal imperative to deny anticipatory bail to accused persons in corruption cases to uphold the integrity of public institutions and deter corrupt practices.6. Distinction Between Anticipatory Bail and Regular BailThe Court clarified that the principles governing anticipatory bail differ from those applicable to regular bail. While anticipatory bail is a preventive remedy granted before arrest, regular bail is considered after arrest and charge-sheet filing. The Court stated that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of regular bail and that such applications would be considered independently without influence from the present order.7. Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe petitioner's counsel argued for anticipatory bail based on the right to life and liberty and contended that custodial interrogation was not warranted. The Court rejected this submission, finding no merit given the serious nature of the offence and the strong prima facie evidence. The Court also dismissed any suggestion of political motivation or frivolity in the prosecution.The Court gave due consideration to the petitioner's arguments but found them insufficient to override the public interest in combating corruption and the strong evidence against the petitioner.Significant holdings include:'Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.''The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.''Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.''Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988.''The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail are distinct and different from the principles as regards the grant of regular bail.'The Court's final determination was to dismiss the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a weak case. The denial of anticipatory bail was justified given the strong prima facie evidence, the serious nature of the offence, and the overriding public interest in combating corruption. The Court left open the possibility of the petitioner seeking regular bail, which would be considered on its own merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
