LexDEVINDER KUMAR BANSAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1531 : 2025 INSC 320 Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab (SLP (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025) 03 March 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court justified in denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and s.61(2) of the BNS 2023. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.61(2) – Illegal gratification – Anticipatory bail – Denial – Petitioner-Audit Inspector with the Government demanded illegal gratification in connection with conducting of audit during the tenure of complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat – Co-accused actually collected the bribe amount for and on behalf of the petitioner from the complainant – FIR registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and s.61(2) of the BNS 2023 – Application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner – High Court denied the bail – Correctness: Held: High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner – 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 – In the instant case, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution – Presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail – Presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail – 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 1532 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports the cause of public justice – 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. [Paras 21, 23, 24, 32] Case Law Cited State of M.P. and Another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and Another [1995] 1 SCR 897 : AIR 1995 SC 1198; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 15 SCR 201 : AIR 2011 SC 312; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [2013] 8 SCR 830 : (2013) 7 Scale 15; Manoj Narula v. Union of India [2014] 9 SCR 965 : (2014) 9 SCC 1; Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 4 SCR 767 : (2013) 4 SCC 642; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [2012] 3 SCR 52 : (2012) 3 SCC 64; K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 224 : (2001) 6 SCC 584; Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation [2014] 6 SCR 873 : (2014) 8 SCC 682; Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2017] 8 SCR 498 : (2017) 8 SCC 757 – referred to. Ratan Moni Dey v. Emperor (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calcutta 292; Damodar Krishna Kamli v. State, 1955 Cr.L.J. 181 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. List of Keywords Illegal gratification; Anticipatory bail; Audit Inspector with the Government; Conducting of audit; Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat; Bribe amount; Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail; Corruption; Frivolity; Presumption of innocence; Public justice; Over solicitous homage. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2025 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 6003 of 2025 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1533 Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Ms. Disha Singh. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Exemption Applications are allowed. 2. The High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with First Information Report No. l dated 08.01.2025 registered with the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.