The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that seeking bail in corruption case on the ground that no loss has been caused to the government is meaningless.

The Court observed thus in a batch of two petitions filed by a man seeking anticipatory bail.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara said, “Petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the government and the said argument is meaningless. If this argument is accepted, then every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss caused to government, would be entitled to bail which is neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act nor the provisions relating to cheating, forgery under Indian Penal Code. In fact the petitioner tried to avoid allotment from the CEO at Panchkula by ensuring that the matter is closed at Faridabad itself. Later on when the writ petition which was filed by the beneficiaries was withdrawn, then the matter was enquired by CEO Panchkula, which resulted in further enquiry and revealed the malicious intent and participation of petitioner.”

Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai represented the petitioner/accused while DAG Naveen Kumar Sheoran represented the respondent/State.

In this case, allegations were levelled against the petitioner/accused that there was re-allotment of two different SCO(s) to allottee without approval of competent authority after taking bribe. The accused was posted as Estate Officer in HSVP Gurugram and apprehended his arrest in the FIR under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail.

The High Court after considering the facts of the case noted, “… petitioner was required to wait for the final decision by CEO, when he was specifically asked, but he issued provisional allotment, his malicious conduct is established when he handed over symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. The another reason which points towards the petitioner’s mis-conduct is that he was aware of the pendency of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while issuance of provisional allotment. As concerned for the inquiry on his part qua non delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA as well as before Consumer Redressal Forum.”

The Court added that the petitioner also ignored and by-passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court. It said that the petitioner failed to make a case for anticipatory bail.

Due to the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of the petitioner, the Court observed that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions.

Cause Title- Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:040586)


Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, Advocates Arnav Ghai, and Dhruv Trehan.

Respondent: DAG Naveen Kumar Sheoran

Click here to read/download the Judgment