In a firm stance against corruption, the Supreme Court has denied anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding bribes, emphasizing that courts should not hesitate to restrict an accused’s liberty when necessary for a corruption-free society.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan underscored that anticipatory bail in corruption cases should remain an exception, granted only when there is clear evidence of false implication or politically motivated allegations. The Court maintained that mere acceptance of a bribe, irrespective of whether an act was performed in return, is enough to establish culpability.
Rejecting the argument that anticipatory bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court referenced State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia to assert that such relief is a statutory privilege, not an automatic entitlement. The ruling made it clear that courts must prioritize public interest over excessive concern for an accused’s liberty, especially in serious offenses like corruption.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an Audit Inspector with the government, faced allegations of soliciting a bribe related to an audit of development work linked to the complainant’s wife, a former Sarpanch. His co-accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the bribe, with an audio recording further implicating the petitioner in directing the illicit transaction.
After the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected his plea for anticipatory bail, the petitioner escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. However, considering the gravity of corruption-related offenses, the apex court upheld the High Court’s decision, reinforcing that judicial discretion must align with broader public interest when dealing with graft cases.
