LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus BALJEET SINGH

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 10-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 415 : 2026 INSC 221
Central Bureau of Investigation 
v. 
Baljeet Singh
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12486 of 2025)
10 March 2026
[Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Bereft of proof of the conspiracy theory and finding absence of the 
demand of bribe, the conviction of both the accused (A1 andΒ A2) 
was overturned by the High Court.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
s.120B – PW1 alleged that Income Tax Officer-A2 made a 
demand of Rs.5 lakhs purportedly on behalf of appellant, 
Assessing Officer-A1 – PW1 approached CBI – PW1 is alleged 
to have informed A2 that he had in his possession only Rs.2 
lakhs – Trap was laid – PW1 then went to the office room of 
A1, where he found only A2, to whom he handed over the 
envelope, which A2 put in his coat pocket – The Trap Laying 
Officer (TLO) and another constable caught hold of the hands 
of A2 and one of the independent witnesses, PW18 was 
asked to search A2 – Envelope was recovered – The notes 
were taken out from the envelope recovered from the coat 
pocket of A2 and both the hands of A2 being submerged in 
two separate tumblers of Sodium Carbonate solution, they 
turned pink revealing the taint of acceptance of the powdered 
envelope with the marked notes – Trial Court convicted 
both the accused persons u/s.120B of the IPC r/w s.7 of the 
PC Act – The High Court, by the impugned decision, found 
that there was no conspiracy proved and that there was no  
proof of a demand having been made by A2 and A1 – 
Correctness:
Held: This Court noticed from the evidence of PW22 that after fully 
corroborating the trap it was deposed that on being challenged, 
* Author
416
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
A2 remained mum – It was also testified that A2 tried to escape 
and take out the money – It was PW1 who pointed out the upper 
pocket of the coat of A2 where he had kept the envelope which 
was taken out by PW18 as fully corroborated by PW22 – PW10 
also stated that the man apprehended in A1’s room turned pale – 
All these are relevant conduct of A2 pointing to his guilt fortified by 
the recovery of the marked cash from his body and his hands, coat 
and sweater, on being washed in the test solution, turning pink, as 
deposed by the witnesses – The order of acquittal passed by the 
High Court insofar as A2 is concerned, cannot be accepted – As 
far as, the trap proper is concerned, there is complete corroboration 
of the testimony of PW1 by that of PW22, the TLO – There is 
also sufficient corroboration from PW10 & PW18, the independent 
witnesses – The hand wash of A2 also stood established beyond 
doubt – The marked notes were identified from the numbers taken 
down in the HOM at the time of pre-trap proceedings, corroborated 
by all the above witnesses – There was neither proof of demand 
nor acceptance by A1 – However, the acquittal against A2 is set 
aside and order of the trial Court in convicting him for the offence 
u/s.7 of the PC Act is restored – The sentence of four years of RI 
handed down by the trial court is modified to one year, considering 
the age of A2. [Paras 28-30]
Case Law Cited
A. Srinivasulu v. State represented by the Inspector of Police [2023] 
10 SCR 11 : (2023) 13 SCC 705; Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central 
Bureau of Investigation [2018] 12 SCR 914 : (2019) 17 SCC 509; 
Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan [1972] 3 SCR 303 : (1972) 2 
SCC 466; Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 
2 SCR 330 : (1979) 3 SCC 90; State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh 
[1959] 1 SCR 195 : AIR 1958 SC 500; Bhanuprasad Hariprasad 
Dave Rajuji v. State of Gujarat [1969] 1 SCR 22 : AIR 1968 SC 
1323; Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2022] 5 SCR 
104 : (2023) 4 SCC 731; Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration (1976) 
1 SCC 727; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash 
[1972] 2 SCR 765 : (1972) 1 SCC 249 – referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Penal Code, 1860.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
417
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Baljeet Singh
List of Keywords
Corruption; Demand of money; Criminal conspiracy; Demand and 
acceptance; Trap proceedings; Phenolphthalein Test; Independent 
Witnesses; Corroboration; Modification of sentence; Pre-trap 
proceedings.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Criminal) No. 12486 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2024 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.