- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- 'Courts Shouldn't Hesitate To Deny...
'Courts Shouldn't Hesitate To Deny Liberty To Accused If Necessary For Corruption-Free Society' : Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail
Yash Mittal
6 March 2025 4:08 PM IST
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding illegal gratification. The Court held that in serious offenses like corruption, courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail to uphold public confidence in the justice system. It emphasized that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases where there is...
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to a public servant accused of demanding illegal gratification.
The Court held that in serious offenses like corruption, courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail to uphold public confidence in the justice system. It emphasized that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases where there is a prima facie indication of false implication or frivolous allegations.
"Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice," observed the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.
The Court rejected the accused's argument that denying anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation was not required violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, taking reference to the case of State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and Another AIR 1995 SC 1198 the Court ruled that the grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and should be granted only when the court is prima facie satisfied that the accused has been falsely implicated or the allegations are frivolous.
“the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.”, the court observed.
Moreover, the Court supported denying liberty to an accused to create a corruption-free society, stating that if denying an accused's liberty is necessary to ensure a corruption-free society, courts should not hesitate to do so.
“If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.”, the Court observed.
In Ram Kishna Balothia's case, the Court held that anticipatory bail is not an integral part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and can be denied in cases involving serious offenses like corruption.
“We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code? Also anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its nonapplication to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.”, the Court observed in Ram Kishan Balothia's case.
Background
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard the criminal SLP filed by a public servant employed as an Audit Inspector with the Government.
The petitioner was accused of demanding illegal gratification (bribe) in connection with an audit related to development work undertaken during the tenure of the complainant's wife as Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat.
The co-accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the bribe on behalf of the petitioner.
An audio recording corroborated the demand for a bribe, wherein the petitioner was heard instructing the co-accused to transfer the bribe amount to a third party.
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Following this, he approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision.
Considering the seriousness of the offence (corruption) and the need for strict judicial action in such cases, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision refusing to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: DEVINDER KUMAR BANSAL VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291