https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312461 In a trap case alleging demand and prima facie acceptance of illegal gratification, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail was not justified where complaint material, trap proceedings, recorded conversation, deposit of the bribe amount through an Angadia channel, evasion of arrest, and the need for custodial interrogation showed strong prima facie circumstances; the bail protection was set aside. The Court also held that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required because the allegations concerned acceptance of undue advantage in a trap operation, not a protected decision or recommendation made in discharge of official functions. The connected remand order based on the bail protection was withdrawn, leaving regular bail to be considered on its own merits. en-us Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2024 06:29:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312461 In a trap case alleging demand and prima facie acceptance of illegal gratification, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail was not justified where complaint material, trap proceedings, recorded conversation, deposit of the bribe amount through an Angadia channel, evasion of arrest, and the need for custodial interrogation showed strong prima facie circumstances; the bail protection was set aside. The Court also held that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required because the allegations concerned acceptance of undue advantage in a trap operation, not a protected decision or recommendation made in discharge of official functions. The connected remand order based on the bail protection was withdrawn, leaving regular bail to be considered on its own merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312461