2025 (3) TMI 1489 - SC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory bail denied in corruption case involving illegal gratification during wife's tenure as Sarpanch under Section 7

Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus The State of Punjab

The SC dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail plea in a corruption case involving illegal gratification related to audit of development work during ... Denial of anticipatory bail to the petitioner - 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 - offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - HELD THAT:- Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the other hand, Section 13 of the Act, 1988 is with regard to criminal misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice - If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, [2015 (4) TMI 154 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, [2013 (3) TMI 595 - SUPREME COURT] and held that 'It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.' Conclusion - The petition is dismissed for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a weak case. It is convinced that the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein - petition dismissed. 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.