Summary
Anticipatory bail was refused to an Audit Inspector accused of demanding a bribe, collected through a co-accused caught red-handed, for conducting a panchayat audit. A mere demand or solicitation of a bribe is itself an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; anticipatory bail is not an integral part of Article 21 and in corruption cases may be granted only in exceptional circumstances such as false implication or frivolous or politically motivated allegations, none of which was shown.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner, an Audit Inspector accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was entitled to anticipatory bail.
- Whether a demand or solicitation of a bribe, without actual receipt, constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Act.
- Whether refusal of anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation is not warranted violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Provisions considered
- Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The Court quoted the section and set out the ingredients of the offence (public servant; acceptance, agreement to accept or attempt to obtain a gratification; not legal remuneration; as a motive or reward for an official act or for showing favour or disfavour) and held that an 'attempt' to obtain a bribe is itself an offence, so a mere demand or solicitation, express or implied, completes the offence; actual exchange of the bribe is not essential. Section 7 is pari materia with the omitted Section 161 IPC. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- Section 13(1)(a), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Quoted and contrasted with Section 7: criminal misconduct under this clause consists in habitually accepting, obtaining, agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain gratification of the kind mentioned in Section 7. (¶¶ 10, 17)
- Sections 10 and 11, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988Noted as making punishable public servants who take bribes through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from persons with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings. (¶ 13)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaRelying on State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia, the Court held that anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is a statutory right and not an integral part of Article 21, and rejected the submission based on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre that refusing anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation is not needed violates Article 21. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Held
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes an attempt to obtain a bribe an offence in itself; a demand or solicitation by a public servant, whether in express or implicit terms, therefore amounts to commission of the offence, and actual exchange of the bribe is not an essential requirement (Ratan Moni Dey v. Emperor and Damodar Krishna Kamli v. State followed). (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Anticipatory bail is a statutory right conferred by the Code long after the Constitution and is not an integral part of Article 21; it cannot be granted as a matter of right, and the Law Commission contemplated that the power be exercised in very exceptional cases. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- In a serious offence like corruption, anticipatory bail may be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely roped in, or the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous. The presumption of innocence is only one consideration; the court must balance the cause of the accused against the cause of public justice, and where overwhelming considerations require denial of liberty to ensure a corruption-free society, anticipatory bail must be denied. (¶¶ 21, 23, 24)
- The High Court rightly refused anticipatory bail: the co-accused was caught red-handed accepting the bribe and admitted receiving it on the petitioner's behalf, and an audio recording corroborated the petitioner's demand; no exceptional circumstance or frivolity in the prosecution was shown. (¶¶ 7, 8, 21, 32)
- The principles governing anticipatory bail are distinct from those governing regular bail; once the chargesheet is filed, an application for regular bail is to be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by these observations. (¶¶ 24, 34, 35)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; the High Court's refusal of anticipatory bail upheld. Any application for regular bail to be decided on its own merits. Pending applications disposed of.