Presumption of Influence Can’t Override Liberty: High Court Grants Bail to Police Officer Accused Under Prevention of Corruption Act

“Custody after investigation is no longer necessary; fears of influence can be neutralized by stringent conditions” – In a notable judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a police officer accused of accepting illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, emphasizing that custody must not be prolonged once investigation is over. Justice N.S. Shekhawat held that the risk of influencing witnesses, particularly when not substantiated by evidence, cannot by itself justify continued incarceration. The bail was allowed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), reinforcing the principle that liberty and procedural fairness remain paramount.

“Liberty Cannot Be Denied Solely on Presumption of Witness Influence”: High Court Frowns Upon Prosecution’s Argument Against Bail

The petitioner, Sub-Inspector Manbir Singh, was arrested on 10 April 2025 in connection with FIR No. 16, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and later also under Section 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ambala, following a complaint that the officer had demanded a bribe in relation to an FIR involving the complainant’s father.

After three months in custody, and with the investigation concluded and the challan already filed, the petitioner sought regular bail before the High Court. The State opposed bail, arguing that as a serving police officer, the petitioner could influence witnesses, especially since the complainant had not yet testified.

Bail, Custodial Need, and Risk of Influence:

Justice N.S. Shekhawat rejected the prosecution’s attempt to block bail purely on speculative grounds and underlined that bail jurisprudence demands a careful balance between the right to liberty and the need to preserve trial integrity.

Observing that the petitioner had already spent about three months in custody, the Court remarked:

“The investigation has already been completed and apparently, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.”

On the allegation that the petitioner may influence witnesses, the Court stated emphatically:

“The case primarily hinges on the testimonies of the complainant or the official witnesses and the petitioner may not influence the witnesses in the present case.”

The Court made it clear that liberty cannot be denied merely on presumptive threats, especially when the prosecution had failed to place on record any concrete material to suggest witness tampering.

“Judicial Discretion Must Balance Liberty with Procedural Integrity”: Bail Granted With Stringent Conditions

While allowing the bail petition, the Court took a calibrated approach by imposing stringent safeguards to ensure that trial is not compromised. Justice Shekhawat observed:

“Without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed… subject to conditions that will prevent any misuse of the liberty granted.”

The Court directed that the petitioner must not contact or threaten witnesses, must remain present at court hearings, and must surrender his passport or affirm non-possession. He was also required to declare his residence and mobile number, and notify any changes. The Court specifically empowered the trial court to impose “two heavy local sureties” and additional conditions as deemed necessary.

Justice Shekhawat was unequivocal in his warning:

“In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions mentioned above, it shall be viewed seriously and the concession of bail… shall be liable to be cancelled.”

By granting bail to a police officer accused under a stringent anti-corruption statute, the High Court reasserted that bail remains the norm and jail the exception, particularly once the investigation is complete and the trial is yet to commence. The judgment also makes it clear that speculative claims of influence, unsupported by evidence, cannot override the constitutional value of personal liberty.

This ruling serves as a reminder that judicial discretion in bail matters must walk the fine line between ensuring justice and preserving freedom, and that **stringent bail conditions—not pre-trial imprisonment—are the appropriate tools to secure fairness in serious but unproven allegations.

Date of Decision: 07 July 2025