Regular bail refused in a corruption case where trap recovery and corroborative evidence showed prima facie involvement in bribery conspiracy.

Regular bail was refused in a corruption prosecution involving alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, criminal conspiracy, and related offences. The Court relied on the alleged raid, trap proceedings, recovery of the tainted amount, identification material, voice recordings, and the charge-sheet to find prima facie involvement. It noted active participation of one applicant and that the other was caught red-handed receiving the bribe amount. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and corroborative investigative material, the Court held that the matter was not fit for grant of regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail in a prosecution alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, criminal conspiracy, and related offences.

Analysis: The applications were considered in the background of the alleged raid, the subsequent demand for bribe, the trap proceedings, recovery of the bribe amount, identification material, voice recordings, and the filing of the charge-sheet. The Court found that the record disclosed active participation of one applicant and that the other applicant was caught red-handed while receiving the tainted amount. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the supporting materials collected during investigation, and the nature of the offences, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be refused where the investigation discloses prima facie involvement in a serious corruption offence supported by trap recovery and corroborative evidence showing active participation in the alleged conspiracy.

---