Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Anticipatory Bail to Public Servant Accused of Seeking Bribe

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the Special Leave Petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail to a government audit inspector accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petition contested the High Court order declining anticipatory bail in FIR No. 1 dated 08.01.2025 registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion, finding no exceptional circumstances for granting anticipatory bail in a corruption offence. The bench observed the matter was “very weak” for the petitioner and noted the High Court's reliance on evidence that included an alleged audio recording and the apprehension of a co-accused red‑handed while receiving the bribe. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.” The Court also recorded that counsel was told it had “to convey to her with all humility at our command that she has come before us with a very weak matter.”

Background The dispute arose from allegations that the petitioner, an Audit Inspector in government service, demanded illegal gratification in connection with audits of development works undertaken during the tenure of the complainant's wife as Sarpanch. It was alleged that co-accused Prithvi Singh collected the bribe on behalf of the petitioner and was apprehended while allegedly accepting the amount. The High Court declined anticipatory bail after noting the purported audio recording dated 08.01.2025 which, according to the prosecution, corroborated the demand and directions to transfer the bribe.

The petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail before the High Court and, after denial, filed the present Special Leave Petition. The petitioner’s counsel invoked Article 21 and decisions such as Siddharam Mhetre to argue custodial protection; the Court rejected that line of argument on the facts. The Supreme Court reviewed statutory provisions, including Section 7 (public servant taking gratification) and Section 13(1)(a) (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and reiterated that mere solicitation or an "attempt" to obtain gratification constituted an offence under Section 7. The bench referred to precedent authorities on the scope of Section 7 and the parameters for anticipatory bail in corruption matters, including the need to weigh the nature of accusation, prima facie evidence and public interest.

Having found no exceptional circumstances or frivolity in the prosecution, the Court dismissed the petition. The bench clarified that if the petitioner applied for regular bail later, the application would be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in this order. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 3247 OF 2025 Case Title: Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Advocate For the Respondent(s): State Counsel; Advocate for the complainant (names not specified in the order)