Pre-Arrest Bail In Corruption Cases Can Be Granted Only When FIR Was Filed On Political Vendetta Or Prima Facie False Implication: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the anticipatory bail in corruption case can be granted only in exceptional cases, the court is required to be prima facie satisfied either of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity in the complaint.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "it is well settled law, and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus State of Punjab, that anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Corruption Act is to be granted only in the rarest of rare circumstances. The court is required to be prima facie satisfied either of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity in the complaint."

The Court was hearing a pre-arrest bail plea of a Patwari namely Kewal Singh, who along with his co-accused, Balkar Singh (Superintendent, Panchayat Samiti Office) was  accused of demanding an illegal gratification of Rs.60,000 from the complainant in order to facilitate a favourable report in an inquiry. The FIR was lodged under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged recovery of the tainted money was effected not from the petitioner but solely at the instance of the co-accused, Balkar Singh, Superintendent, Panchayat Samiti Office and he was falsely implicated.

Drawing attention to FIR, the counsel emphasised that the case of the prosecution is primarily built upon an unauthenticated audio recording, which, in his submission, does not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act against the petitioner.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the case of the prosecution is not premised on an oral complaint alone, but is fortified by documentary and corroborative material, including an audio recording, trap proceedings conducted in accordance with law, and the recovery of tainted currency notes from the co-accused.

Justice Kaul highlighted that the gravity of allegations reflects a serious abuse of official position and a breach of public trust.

"The claim of the petitioner regarding lack of direct involvement is a matter of factual determination which cannot be conclusively addressed at this stage while considering a petition for grant of anticipatory bail," the Court added.

The judge opined that the the contention that the inquiry report had already been submitted on 29.03.2024 does not, by itself, rule out the possibility of prior or subsequent misconduct, particularly in the context of the alleged illegal demand and quid pro quo.

It further noted that the specific allegations are supported by preliminary material including the trap proceedings, indicate a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.

Considering the "seriousness of the allegations, the position of trust held by the petitioner as a public servant, and the need for thorough investigation through custodial interrogation", the Court rejected the plea.

Mr. J.S. Bhandowal, Advocate, and Ms. Manveer Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Title: Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order