Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently held that "the deprivation of bail constitutes a punishment and reaffirmed that every individual is presumed innocent until duly tried and proven guilty" while dealing with the case of a sub-inspector of the Delhi Police accused of accepting bribes.

The present case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) against Sub-Inspector Yudhveer Singh, who was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for allegedly demanding a bribe of  Rs 2,50,000.

The bench presided over by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, acknowledged that the allegations levelled against the accused are of a grave nature and said, "however, at the same time, this Court is required to take into account and appreciate the settled law that a bail shall not be withheld as a punishment."

The court opined that a sensitive approach is required when dealing with offences involving bribery allegations against a public officer, as such allegations can 'undermine public trust in public servants' who are duty-bound to protect them.

"It is imperative to state that it is upon the judicial discretion of the courts while granting or refusing a bail application, and the said discretion shall be exercised about the facts and circumstances of each case," the court added.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal, appearing for the Sub-inspector, contended before the bench that the accused had been falsely implicated and that all the allegations were baseless.

It was further submitted that the accused must be granted bail as the investigation has been completed and that he is liable to be released on bail because the present case does not fall within the category of Sections 480(1)(i) and 480(1)(ii) of the BNSS.

Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal relied on the judgments of Apex Court and asserted that while granting bail, the courts must adhere to the settled principle of law “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

At this juncture, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP)  Anupam Sharma appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vehemently opposed the bail plea and stressed that allegations of corruption levelled against the accused are serious and fall under the provision of Section 7 of the PC Act, and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

However, the court upheld the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 and said, "The bail should not be denied based on the sole criteria that the seriousness of allegations is against the sentiments of the community. Therefore, it was observed that a totality of factors shall be considered before deciding a bail application on merits."

Accordingly, the court directed the petitioner to be released on bail and to furnish a personal bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- 

For Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sachin Baisla, Ms. Shivani Sharma, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal, Mr. Naresh Bhati, Mr. Mahabir Singh, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Akash Gupta, Mr. Mudabbera Zaheen and Ms. Yashpriya Sahran, Advocates.

For CBI: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP, CBI with Mr. Prakash Diran, Mr. Harpreet Kabi, Mr. Vashisht Rao and Mr. Syamantak Modgill, Advocates

Case Title: Yudhveer Singh Yadav v CBI