The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s denial of anticipatory bail to an accused in a corruption case, emphasizing that maintaining a corruption-free society justifies restricting liberty for the accused.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts should not hesitate to deny liberty to an accused if it ensures a corruption-free society. This observation was made in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenging a High Court order that denied anticipatory bail to an accused in a corruption case.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed,
“If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure a 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.”
The Bench stated that the presumption of innocence alone cannot be the sole consideration for granting anticipatory bail. Advocate Sanya Kaushal appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused.
The High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the accused in connection with an FIR registered with the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
The accused, serving as an Audit Inspector with the Government, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification in connection with an audit related to development work conducted during the tenure of the complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Additionally, it was alleged that a co-accused collected the bribe amount on behalf of the petitioner. Apprehending arrest, the accused sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, stating:
“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.”
The Court further noted,
“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. If even a fraction of what was the vox populi about the magnitude of corruption is true, then it would not be far removed from the truth that rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons has led to economic unrest in this country.”
The Bench remarked that corruption is one of the biggest obstacles to the country’s progress and that corrupt elements in government and political parties pose a greater menace than even hired assassins to law and order.
“In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein,”
the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the High Court’s decision, reinforcing the need for strict measures against corruption.
Case Title- Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 320)
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE