THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, March 6: The Supreme Court recently upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding a bribe.
It ruled that in serious offenses like corruption, courts must exercise caution while granting anticipatory bail to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The Court emphasized that such bail should only be granted in exceptional cases where there is clear evidence of false implication or politically motivated allegations.
“Over-solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can sometimes defeat the cause of public justice,” observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
The accused had argued that denying anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation was not required violated Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court referred to State of M.P. & Another v. Ram Kishna Balothia & Another (1995) and ruled that anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right. It should be granted only when the Court is convinced that the accusations are baseless.
“The parameters for granting anticipatory bail in corruption cases must be satisfied. Such bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the applicant has been falsely implicated or the allegations are frivolous. In this case, no such exceptional circumstances exist,” the Court noted.
The Court further stressed that if denying an accused’s liberty is necessary for a corruption-free society, courts should not hesitate to do so.
Also Read: IIT ISM Dhanbad student found dead in hostel washroom
“If liberty must be denied to ensure a corruption-free society, courts should not hesitate. Where overwhelming considerations require the denial of anticipatory bail, it must be denied. However, once the investigation is complete and a charge sheet is filed, regular bail may be considered,” the Court stated.
Legal Precedent
In the Ram Kishna Balothia case, the Court ruled that anticipatory bail is not an integral part of Article 21 and can be denied in serious offenses like corruption.
“We cannot accept the argument that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is an integral part of Article 21. Anticipatory bail is a statutory provision introduced long after the Constitution came into force. Its exclusion in certain offenses does not violate Article 21,” the Court had observed in that case.
Case Background
The case involved an Audit Inspector accused of demanding a bribe related to an audit of development work undertaken during the tenure of the complainant’s wife as a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch.
The co-accused was allegedly caught red-handed accepting the bribe on behalf of the petitioner. An audio recording corroborated the demand, capturing the petitioner instructing the co-accused to transfer the bribe amount to a third party.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court denied the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail. He then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the decision.
Considering the seriousness of the offense and the need for strict action against corruption, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s refusal to grant bail.
