Corruption cases and anticipatory bail: demand of bribe alone can suffice, and liberty claims may yield to prima facie evidence.

In prosecutions for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a proved demand or solicitation of bribe is sufficient under Section 7; actual receipt is not essential. On the materials noted, the alleged demand, collection through a middleman, and corroborative audio recording established a prima facie case of corruption. Anticipatory bail in such cases remains an exceptional remedy and is ordinarily granted only on a showing of false implication, political motivation, or frivolous prosecution. A general plea to personal liberty under Article 21 did not outweigh the seriousness of the accusation and the prima facie material, so refusal of anticipatory bail was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution alleging demand and collection of illegal gratification by a public servant under the corruption law.

Analysis: The materials referred to a demand of illegal gratification, collection of the amount through a middleman, and corroborative audio recording. The governing principle applied was that under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a demand or solicitation of bribe is sufficient and actual receipt is not essential. The Court also reiterated that anticipatory bail in corruption cases is an exceptional remedy, to be granted only where the accused shows false implication, political motivation, or frivolity in the prosecution. The plea based on personal liberty under Article 21 was not accepted in the face of the seriousness of the accusation and the prima facie materials.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the refusal of anticipatory bail was upheld.

---