In a significant ruling reinforcing the judiciary’s strict stance against corruption, the Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Devinder Kumar Bansal, an Audit Inspector with the Government of Punjab, accused of demanding and receiving bribes in an official audit-related matter. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision rejecting Bansal’s plea, stating that “if liberty is to be denied to ensure a corruption-free society, then the courts should not hesitate.”
Case Background
The case originates from FIR No. 1, dated January 8, 2025, registered by the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner, Devinder Kumar Bansal, is accused of demanding illegal gratification in relation to an audit of development works carried out under the tenure of the complainant’s wife, a former Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.
According to the prosecution, co-accused Prithvi Singh was caught red-handed accepting the bribe on behalf of Bansal. The authorities also submitted an audio recording dated January 8, 2025, wherein Bansal could be heard confirming with Singh whether the bribe was received and directing him to transfer the amount to a third party, Naresh.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the principles governing anticipatory bail in corruption cases and reiterated that such relief should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that:
1. Mere demand or solicitation of a bribe amounts to an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Actual acceptance of a bribe is not necessary; even an attempt to obtain an illegal gratification constitutes an offence.
3. Public servants accepting bribes through middlemen are equally culpable.
The court cited landmark precedents, including:
– Ratan Moni Dey v. Emperor (1905) – Holding that solicitation of a bribe is itself an attempt to obtain gratification.
– Damodar Krishna Kamli v. State (1955 Cr.L.J. 181) – Where the Bombay High Court held that a public servant agreeing to accept a bribe is guilty even without receiving the money.
Referring to the seriousness of corruption, the court drew from multiple Supreme Court rulings, highlighting its adverse impact on governance and public trust. It remarked:
“Corruption is an enemy of the nation, and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them is a necessary mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
The court also quoted Justice R.M. Lodha in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014), emphasizing that:
“Corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally.”
Denial of Bail and Future Legal Options
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that denial of anticipatory bail violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution, the court noted that:
– Anticipatory bail is not an absolute right.
– The presumption of innocence cannot be the sole consideration for granting such relief.
– The gravity of corruption cases demands stringent scrutiny.
The bench firmly held:
“Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie convinced that the applicant has been falsely implicated, or the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous.”
In Bansal’s case, the presence of direct evidence, including a caught-in-the-act co-accused and audio recordings, made it clear that no such exceptional circumstance existed.
While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that if Bansal later applies for regular bail, it shall be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by this ruling on anticipatory bail.
