Anticipatory Bail Cannot Shield Those Who Manipulate Public Funds: P&H High Court Denies Relief to Municipal Officials in ₹12 Crore Corruption Scam

“Over-solicitous homage to liberty can defeat the cause of public justice” – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a massive corruption and forgery scandal involving over ₹12 crores of public funds. Justice Sumeet Goel, who firmly reiterated that economic offences by public servants strike at the root of public administration and must be treated with stringent scrutiny.

Filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petition arose from FIR No. 0023 dated 12.08.2025, registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Faridabad, under several sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including charges of forgery, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, and abuse of official position.

Court Rejects Argument That Custodial Interrogation Is Unnecessary in White-Collar Crimes

The petitioners, both officials in the Accounts Branch of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (MCF), were accused of processing fraudulent payments based on forged work orders and manipulated project estimates for works that were never executed. Their counsel argued that they had a limited clerical role, acted upon audited bills, and that the case rested entirely on documents already in the possession of the prosecution.

The Court, however, decisively rejected this argument. Referring to the seriousness of forgery and economic offences, it held:

“In cases involving forgery, manipulation of official records, electronic data, audit processes and conspiracy among multiple accused, the custodial interrogation often becomes indispensable to ascertain the knowledge and intent of the accused and trace the money trail.” [Para 7]

The Court further added:

“Granting anticipatory bail at this stage may likely hamper the ongoing investigation.” [Para 8]

Fraudulent Estimates Jumped from ₹72 Lakhs to ₹12 Crores Within Days: FIR Details a Deep Conspiracy

The FIR details how 13 fake work orders dated 27.11.2018 were fraudulently issued in the name of one Satbir Singh, a contractor. These estimates, originally worth ₹72.75 lakhs, were illegally revised to ₹12.18 crores within 20 days, and cleared for payment with fake dispatch numbers. No actual work was ever performed.

The names of the petitioners—Vishal Kaushik and Naveen Kumar—surfaced during the investigation as part of a wider conspiracy involving municipal engineers, clerks, audit officers, and private beneficiaries. Despite claiming to have acted in a purely procedural capacity, the Court found that the petitioners were actively involved in processing the forged bills and facilitating the release of payments.

“Prima facie, the material on record indicates that the petitioners were part of the process through which forged work orders, manipulated estimates, and first running bills were processed and cleared for payment.” [Para 7]

Corruption Is Not a Crime Against an Individual, but Against Society

In a strong indictment of the social cost of corruption, Justice Goel invoked the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, observing:

“Corruption by public servant is not merely an offence against an individual but constitutes an offence against society at large, eroding public confidence in the administration.” [Para 7]

Further referencing State v. Anil Sharma (1997), the Court emphasized that:

“Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438.” [Para 8]

The Court clarified that anticipatory bail in corruption matters can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as cases of clear false implication or political vendetta—none of which were made out here.

Prior Bail Orders in Similar FIRs Do Not Create an Automatic Right

Petitioners argued that they had already received anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs based on similar allegations and that the current FIR was part of the same transaction. However, the Court rejected the plea, observing:

“Whether the FIRs arise out of the same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial.” [Para 8]

It reaffirmed that: “Each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Grant of bail in other FIRs does not ipso facto entitle accused to anticipatory bail in subsequent FIR involving expanding conspiracy.” [Para 8]

Liberty of Accused Must Be Balanced Against Societal Interest

While acknowledging the principle of presumption of innocence, the Court issued a stern reminder that liberty is not absolute, particularly when weighed against public interest in corruption cases:

“Over-solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.” [Para 7, quoting Vijay Sai Reddy]

“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.” [Para 7]

Bail Rejected to Preserve Integrity of Ongoing Investigation

Concluding that the petitioners failed to make out any case for pre-arrest protection, the Court found that the magnitude of the offence, status of the accused as public servants, and necessity for custodial interrogation all militated against the grant of anticipatory bail.

“In the present case, the investigation is still at a crucial stage and the grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture will impede the fair and effective investigation.” [Para 9]

The petition was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its findings were limited to the consideration of bail and would not affect the merits of the case during trial or regular bail proceedings.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026