Introduction:

In the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291], the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding illegal gratification.

Arguments:

The petitioner, an Audit Inspector with the Government, was implicated in a bribery case related to an audit concerning development work during the tenure of the complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. The co-accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe on behalf of the petitioner, with an audio recording corroborating the demand. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the High Court, arguing that since custodial interrogation was unnecessary, denying bail violated Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgement:

However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, dismissed his petition, holding that anticipatory bail in corruption cases must be granted only in exceptional circumstances where false implication or frivolous allegations are evident. The Court stressed that overemphasizing an accused’s liberty could undermine public justice and that strict judicial scrutiny is essential in corruption cases to maintain public confidence in the system. Citing State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia (AIR 1995 SC 1198), the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not a fundamental right under Article 21 but a statutory provision subject to judicial discretion. The bench concluded that in corruption cases, courts should not hesitate to deny anticipatory bail if necessary to uphold integrity in public service. The Court clarified that while regular bail may be considered post-charge sheet filing, anticipatory bail is not warranted when strong evidence supports the prosecution’s case.