Gravity of Offence Alone Not Ground to Deny Bail When Triple Test Is Satisfied: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in PC Act Bribery Case

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail Is the Exception — Extended Custody Without Trial Is Unjust”: In a significant order Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, granted regular bail to the petitioner accused in a bribery case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite the grave nature of allegations involving demand, attempted acceptance of bribe, and destruction of evidence.

The Court held: “Even when the offence is serious, bail cannot be denied merely on that ground if the statutory ‘triple test’ for bail is met.”

The petitioner had been in custody for over nine months, and the Court concluded that continued detention without progress in trial would violate his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case arose from a complaint filed on July 1, 2024, alleging that Ravinder Dhaka, along with a co-accused, demanded a bribe of ₹10 lakhs to facilitate the fabrication of documents in a narcotics case involving the complainant’s brother. A trap was set on July 3, 2024, but the operation was compromised when the accused fled, partially destroyed evidence, and allegedly threatened the complainant with a firearm.

As noted by the Court: “Petitioner threw away ₹3 lakhs of the bribe amount, destroyed the DVR containing incriminating audio, and fled the spot after allegedly threatening the complainant.” [Para 4]

Following the incident, a separate FIR (No. 182/2024) was also registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged abduction, criminal intimidation, and assault. The petitioner was arrested a month later, on August 2, 2024, and remained in custody thereafter.

“Triple Test Favors Bail — No Flight Risk, No Tampering, No Repeat Offending”

Justice Dudeja applied the well-established triple test for bail — likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences. The Court found none of these grounds to be satisfied:

“Although the petitioner absconded initially, he surrendered voluntarily and was later granted interim bail, which he did not misuse.” [Para 13]

Further, the Court noted: “The charge sheet has been filed. Three witnesses have been partly examined. There is no allegation that the petitioner has delayed the proceedings or tampered with evidence.” [Para 14]

Additionally, since the petitioner has now been terminated from service, his ability to influence witnesses is diminished: “Petitioner’s termination limits his capacity to influence witnesses. The triple test is clearly satisfied.” [Para 15]

“Right to Speedy Trial Undermined by Prolonged Custody”

The Court reiterated the constitutional mandate under Article 21: “The right to a speedy trial is not an abstract ideal but a fundamental right. Delay in trial proceedings without fault of the accused is a ground for bail.” [Para 17]

Justice Dudeja observed that the trial may take considerable time, especially since only three witnesses had been partially examined and the cross-examination was still underway. The petitioner had already spent more than nine months in custody.

“Previous Offences Not Sufficient to Deny Bail Without Independent Justification”

While the CBI argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender, citing a pending CBI case of similar nature, the Court was unconvinced:

“Mere pendency of another case — especially when chargesheet was filed without arrest — does not justify denial of bail in the present case.” [Para 16]

Even in respect of the separate FIR for abduction and intimidation, the Court noted: “Petitioner has not been arrested in the said case. The law shall take its own course.”

Although bail was granted, the Court imposed stringent conditions to safeguard the integrity of the trial:

“Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission, must remain available to the Court, keep his mobile number active, and avoid contact with witnesses.” [Para 17]

The petitioner was admitted to bail on a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

This ruling highlights a principled approach to bail — balancing the gravity of the offence with the accused's right to liberty and fair trial. The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the constitutional position that bail is the norm and jail the exception, particularly where investigation is complete, evidence is preserved, and trial is likely to be delayed.

“The seriousness of the charge cannot outweigh constitutional rights when procedural safeguards and statutory standards are met.”

Date of Decision: May 27, 2025