No Ground to Grant Bail Where Corruption Allegations Are Supported by Trap and Audio Evidence – Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Patwari

“Anticipatory bail in corruption cases is an exception, not the rule” – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition of a government Patwari seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case involving alleged demand of ₹60,000 as illegal gratification. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul held that specific allegations, supported by an audio recording, trap proceedings, and recovery of tainted money from a co-accused, formed a prima facie case, disqualifying the petitioner from relief under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The petitioner, a Patwari at the Panchayat Samiti Office, Amloh, was named in an FIR dated 5 May 2025 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

“False Implication Not Made Out, Nor Is This a Rarest of Rare Case” – Court Reaffirms High Bar for Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Cases

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, Justice Kaul reaffirmed:

“Anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Corruption Act is to be granted only in the rarest of rare circumstances… The court must be prima facie satisfied of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity in the complaint.” [Para 9]

The Court found that none of these conditions were met. Instead, the complaint was supported by substantive material, including a recorded demand and the trap recovery, which created prima facie involvement.

“Position of Trust Abused; Custodial Interrogation Necessary” – Bail Denied for Public Servant

The petitioner had argued that he was not involved in the inquiry against the complainant and that the inquiry report had already been submitted on 29 March 2024, making the alleged demand illogical. However, the Court rejected this reasoning:

“The contention that the inquiry report had already been submitted does not, by itself, rule out the possibility of prior or subsequent misconduct, particularly in the context of the alleged illegal demand and quid pro quo.” [Para 8]

The Court noted that as a public servant, the petitioner held a position of public trust, which necessitated thorough investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation could not be avoided in light of the seriousness of the offence.

“FIR Not Based on Bare Allegation – Supported by Trap Recovery and Audio Evidence”

The petitioner contended that the FIR was based on an unauthenticated audio clip and recovery not made from him but from a co-accused, Balkar Singh, Superintendent. However, the Court found that the prosecution’s case was not based on oral claims alone:

“The FIR is fortified by documentary and corroborative material, including an audio recording, trap proceedings conducted in accordance with law, and the recovery of tainted currency notes from the co-accused.” [Para 6]

The specific allegation was that the Patwari (petitioner) and co-accused had demanded ₹60,000 in exchange for a favourable report in an inquiry into embezzlement of shamlat land auction money, which was pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib.

No Extraordinary Circumstances to Invoke Judicial Discretion

Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded: “In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the position of trust held by the petitioner as a public servant, and the need for thorough investigation… this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail.” [Para 11]

However, the Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application, and would not affect the merits of the trial.

Date of Decision: 28 May 2025