AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in FIR No.18 dated 29.07.2026, registered for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(B) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 215, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely Yogesh Sachdeva had a dispute with one Vikas with regard to his scooter. The scooter of the complainant was allegedly taken away by Vikas and the matter was brought before Police Post Sector-9, Karnal where complaint(s) from both sides were pending. According to the complainant, the petitioner, who was posted at the said Police Post as Constable, had called Vikas to the Police Post alongwith the scooter. At that time, another police official in civil clothes and an ASI in uniform were also present. When the complainant requested for the return of his scooter, the petitioner allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.4,000/- for releasing the same. On the following day, when the complainant requested that the amount be reduced, the demand was allegedly reduced to Rs.3,000/-. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe, he approached the State Vigilance Bureau and sought legal action against the concerned police officials. The complainant had recorded the conversation relating to the alleged demand.
On receipt of the complaint, the State Vigilance Bureau constituted a raiding party after associating a witness. Currency notes amounting to Rs.3,000/- were arranged for the trap and their numbers were recorded. The raiding party, thereafter, proceeded towards Police Post Sector-9, Karnal. The complainant and the shadow witness went towards the relevant place while the remaining members of the raiding party remained at a short distance waiting for a signal from the shadow witness. On receipt of the signal, the raiding party entered the Police Post and apprehended co-accused HC Sanjeev Kumar. The tainted currency notes were recovered from behind a bag lying in an almirah. The serial numbers of the recovered currency notes were found to tally with those noted in the pre-trap proceedings. The handwash of HC Sanjeev Kumar as well as that of the complainant turned light pink. The recovered currency and the handwash solutions were taken into possession in accordance with the investigation proceedings. HC Sanjeev Kumar was thereafter arrested.
During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were added. Thereafter, co-accused HC Sanjeev Kumar allegedly made a disclosure statement in which he named the present petitioner as his accomplice. On the basis of the investigation conducted thereafter Sections 215 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were also added.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as he has no role in the alleged offence in question. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is working as a Constable in the Haryana Police and has clean antecedents. According to learned senior counsel, no tainted money or other incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is materially different from that of the co-accused, who was apprehended at the spot with the tainted currency. It has been further contended that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by co-accused HC Sanjeev Kumar after his arrest which cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient material/ground to arrest the petitioner. Furthermore, no independent or corroborative material has been brought on record which would connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned senior counsel has emphasized that the essential ingredients of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly the ‘demand and acceptance’ of illegal gratification by the petitioner, are not made out. Moreover, there was no trap qua the petitioner and no recovery was effected from him & therefore, the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are absent insofar as the petitioner is concerned. It has been further contended that the investigation qua the petitioner is still pending and no incriminating material such as any recovery, call detail record, documentary evidence or other corroborative material, has been placed on record against the petitioner. It has been asserted that mere pendency of the investigation cannot be made a ground for denying the concession of anticipatory bail particularly when the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. Learned senior counsel has asserted that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation agency; is willing to join the investigation as and when require; shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness and shall abide by all the condition(s) that may be imposed by this Court in case he is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of concession of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner disclose his active and conscious participation in a well planned criminal conspiracy. Learned State counsel has iterated that the trap has resulted in the apprehension of co-accused HC Sanjeev Kumar from whom the tainted currency of Rs.3,000/- has been recovered. It has been contended that the currency notes were found to tally with the numbers recorded in the pre-trap proceedings and the handwash of HC Sanjeev Kumar turned light pink which lend support to the allegation of demand of illegal gratification. Furthermore, on the basis of the material collected during investigation, Sections 215 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were also added and the role of the petitioner requires further investigation. It has been further contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary as the investigating agency is required to examine the role of each police official allegedly connected with the incident. Learned State counsel has emphasized that mere fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot or that the tainted currency has not been recovered from him does not automatically entitle him to the concession of anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations, if armed with a protective order, the petitioner may influence the witnesses & may impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, relevant whereof reads as under:
“21.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.
22.In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus:
“28.While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
23.The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.
24.If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.
25.Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.
26.If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.”
As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, who is serving as a Constable at Police Post Sector-9, Karnal. As per the allegations, the complainant has a dispute with one Vikas regarding his scooter, which was taken to the Police Post. The complainant has alleged that when he asked for the return of his scooter, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- which was later reduced to Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, a trap was laid and the tainted money was recovered from co-accused HC Sanjeev Kumar. After the arrest of HC Sanjeev Kumar, he allegedly made a disclosure statement and named the petitioner as his accomplice. On the basis of the investigation, additional offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were also added. At this stage, this Court is not required to ratiocinate upon whether the disclosure statement will ultimately be sufficient to establish the guilt of the petitioner. At the stage of consideration of plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence but is required to assess whether the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the accused and whether custodial interrogation is necessary in the factual milieu of the case. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR cannot, by itself, be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. The allegations show misuse of an official position held by the petitioner at the relevant time and such factors are matters to be considered during the course of trial. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to identify the role of other accused and to unearth the larger conspiracy. Furthermore, the plea of false implication raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and involves appreciation of evidence which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. The same can only be adjudicated upon the conclusion of the investigation or during the course of trial. In the considered opinion of this Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage is likely to hamper the on-going investigation.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Furthermore, the Court below has already declined the plea of the petitioner after considering the relevant factors, including the manner in which the name of the petitioner surfaced during investigation. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interests. The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation, appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)
“6.We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In the present case, the investigation is still at a crucial stage and the grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture will impede the fair and effective investigation. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the specific role assigned, the stage of investigation as also the necessity of custodial interrogation for verification of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.