The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that pre-arrest bail in corruption case can only be granted if prima facie case for false implication, political vendetta or manifest frivolity is made out.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The single bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, "It is well settled law, and reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320 that anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the Corruption Act is to be granted only in the rarest of rare circumstances. The court is required to be prima facie satisfied either of false implication, political vendetta, or manifest frivolity in the complaint."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate J.S. Bhandowal while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Manveer Kaur.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR, which pertains to allegations of demanding a bribe of ₹60,000/- in collusion with the co-accused, purportedly as illegal gratification for providing a favourable inquiry report concerning the complainant. It was submitted that the alleged recovery of the tainted money was effected not from the petitioner but solely at the instance of the co-accused.

The Counsel emphasised that the case of the prosecution is primarily built upon an unauthenticated audio recording, which, in his submission, does not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act against the Petitioner. It was further contended that the Petitioner, who was serving as a Patwari for the past five years at the Panchayat Samiti, had no role, much less any direct involvement, in the inquiry alleged to be pending against the Complainant.

It was argued that the inquiry report concerning the complainant had already been submitted prior to the date of the alleged demand thereby eliminating any occasion or motive for the Petitioner to solicit bribe.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the case of the prosecution is not premised on an oral complaint alone, but is fortified by documentary and corroborative material, including an audio recording, trap proceedings conducted in accordance with law, and the recovery of tainted currency notes from the co-accuse.

It stated that the gravity of the allegations reflects a serious abuse of official position and a breach of public trust and the claim of the Petitioner regarding lack of direct involvement is a matter of factual determination which cannot be conclusively addressed at this stage while considering a Petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

"Likewise, the contention that the inquiry report had already been submitted on 29.03.2024 does not, by itself, rule out the possibility of prior or subsequent misconduct, particularly in the context of the alleged illegal demand and quid pro quo," the Court observed.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal Versus State of Punjab, 2025 to reiterate that pre-arrest bail in corruption case can only be granted if prima facie case for false implication, political vendetta or manifest frivolity is made out.

"In the present case, no such circumstances are made out. On the contrary, the specific allegations supported by preliminary material including the trap proceedings, indicate a prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.........In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the position of trust held by the petitioner as a public servant, and the need for thorough investigation through custodial interrogation, this Court finds no ground to extend the extraordinary concession of the anticipatory bail to the petitioner," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Kewal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2025:PHHC:074008)

Click here to read/ download Order