Introduction:

In Abhishek v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Misc. Criminal Case No. 862 of 2025), the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Narcotics Inspector accused of demanding and accepting a bribe through intermediaries to facilitate the issuance of an opium license. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, while rejecting the plea, observed that it is not necessary for a person to physically receive the bribe to be held liable under corruption laws. The court emphasized that if a public servant obtains an undue advantage through another person, liability remains the same. The petitioner, a Narcotics Inspector with the Central Bureau of Narcotics in Mandsaur, was booked under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The case against him was based on allegations that he had demanded a bribe of ₹1,20,000 from the complainant, Badrilal, for issuing an opium license. Though the bribe amount of ₹1,10,000 was received by co-accused Kantu Kumar and Ram Niwas on his behalf, the prosecution argued that the applicant was the mastermind behind the illegal demand. The court, after considering the gravity of the charges and the necessity of custodial interrogation, dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner’s counsel contended that his client was falsely implicated in the case, as he had no authority to issue opium licenses and was not present at the scene when the alleged bribe was taken. It was argued that the prosecution’s case was based on mere allegations without direct evidence linking the petitioner to the act of bribery. The defence further pointed out that the complainant had already received the opium license even before the co-accused persons were caught, which indicated that the petitioner had no role in the bribery demand. Moreover, the defence highlighted that the bribe money was neither recovered from the petitioner nor was there any direct proof of his involvement apart from statements made by the co-accused. The defence urged the court to grant anticipatory bail, arguing that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was not necessary and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the applicant was involved in a serious case of corruption. The prosecution contended that a huge bribe of ₹1,20,000 was demanded from the complainant, out of which ₹1,10,000 was recovered from co-accused persons who had acted on behalf of the petitioner. The prosecution further relied on a voice recording in which the petitioner allegedly demanded the bribe from the complainant, which was a crucial piece of evidence establishing his involvement. It was argued that even if the petitioner did not personally receive the bribe, the fact that it was collected on his behalf made him equally culpable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution emphasized that granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would hamper the investigation, as custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the full extent of the bribery conspiracy. Given the severity of the allegations and the available evidence, the prosecution urged the court to reject the bail plea.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Subodh Abhyankar ruled against granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The court observed that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes it clear that a public servant is guilty of bribery not only when he accepts a bribe but also when he obtains an undue advantage through another person. Referring to this provision, the court held that liability cannot be avoided merely because the bribe was not received in the petitioner’s hands. The court also noted that the co-accused persons had been caught red-handed with the bribe amount and had disclosed that they were acting on behalf of the petitioner. Additionally, the prosecution had presented a transcript of a voice recording in which the petitioner had explicitly demanded the bribe from the complainant, further strengthening the case against him. Given these factors, the court concluded that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ensure a thorough investigation into the corruption allegations. The judgment underscored the serious nature of bribery offences, particularly when committed by public officials entrusted with regulatory functions. The court reiterated that corruption in government institutions undermines public trust and must be dealt with strictly. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.