Even a ₹1000 Bribe is Grave When Public Trust is Betrayed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Junior Engineer in Corruption Case

Public Faith in Governance Cannot Be Undermined by Routine Bribes”: Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to a Junior Engineer (JE) accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. The petitioner, facing allegations of demanding and accepting a ₹1000 bribe to process a routine electricity connection transfer, was refused bail by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, who emphasized that "the demand for ₹1000 – however modest in quantum – is not to be seen in isolation, but must be viewed in light of the position held by the accused and the context of the demand."

The FIR dated 8 March 2025, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, was lodged following a complaint by Justin Singh, who alleged that the petitioner, while serving as Junior Engineer, demanded illegal gratification to issue a report for the transfer of electric motor connections from the name of the complainant’s deceased grandmother to his father's name.

Despite submission of all required documents, the complainant alleged that the petitioner misdirected him to another official and eventually demanded a ₹1000 bribe to sign off the report. The transaction was allegedly recorded on audio by the complainant's friend, and both the recording and transcript were submitted to the Vigilance Bureau. This led to a preliminary investigation and ultimately the lodging of the FIR under the PC Act.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, contending false implication, lack of recovery, and absence of prior criminal record. It was argued that the audio recording was doctored, and that its admissibility was a matter of trial, not pre-trial detention.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the case involved “abuse of public office for pecuniary advantage”, and that the audio recording clearly revealed the petitioner’s demand and acceptance of bribe. The State submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary, and the delay in lodging the FIR was due to initial fact verification by the Vigilance Bureau.

Rejecting the plea, the Court firmly noted: “Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner are serious and carry significant weight. The petitioner, being a Government official entrusted with public duty, allegedly abused his official position for personal gain.”

Justice Kaul emphasized that corruption — even involving a modest bribe — severely undermines public trust: “The act of coercing an ordinary citizen to pay a bribe for availing a rightful service amounts to gross misconduct.”

Addressing the argument about the alleged tampering of the audio clip, the Court held: “The contention that the audio recording is doctored cannot be entertained at this stage... The authenticity and evidentiary value of the recording will, of course, be subject to scrutiny during trial.”

The Judge clarified that: “The mere absence of prior criminal antecedents or the argument that custodial interrogation may not be essential is insufficient to override the broader public interest involved in such cases.”

Refusing to extend what it termed an “extraordinary concession” of anticipatory bail, the Court concluded: “Grant of bail at this stage may not only hamper the ongoing investigation, but may also send an inappropriate signal in cases involving abuse of public office for pecuniary advantage.”

Reinforcing the judiciary’s zero-tolerance stance toward corruption in public offices, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail to Jaswinder Singh, asserting that institutional trust cannot be trivialized by the size of the bribe. The decision reflects the Court’s intent to uphold accountability in governance and ensure that public servants are held to the highest standards of integrity.

Date of Decision: 7 May 2025