Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab
Background
The petitioner, a government Audit Inspector, was accused of demanding illegal gratification through a middleman in connection with an audit of development works carried out during a Sarpanch's tenure. The co-accused, who allegedly collected the bribe on the petitioner's behalf, was caught red-handed accepting the money, and an audio recording allegedly captured the petitioner confirming receipt of the bribe and instructing that it be passed to a third party. The High Court had already refused him anticipatory bail, and he approached the Supreme Court against that refusal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that mere demand or solicitation of a bribe by a public servant is itself an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and actual receipt of the bribe is not essential to establish guilt. Given the corroborating audio recording and the red-handed apprehension of the middleman, the Court found no exceptional circumstances, such as false implication or a politically motivated or frivolous case, that would justify anticipatory bail in a corruption matter, emphasizing that courts should not hesitate to deny pre-arrest protection where the evidence against a public servant is strong. The petition was accordingly dismissed, though the Court clarified this does not prejudge a future regular bail application, which would be decided on its own merits.
Lesson Learnt
Anticipatory bail in corruption cases is granted only in truly exceptional circumstances, not as a matter of right, and even the mere act of demanding or agreeing to accept a bribe, without actually receiving it, is enough to constitute the offence and can be enough to deny pre-arrest protection.