Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has firmly rejected a anticipatory bail plea lodged by an Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSPV) Estate Officer in a corruption case. The court swiftly dismantled the petitioner's defence, which relied on the argument that "no loss has been caused to the government," ultimately refusing to grant bail.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the case, delivered the verdict stating that "The said argument is meaningless.”

"If this argument is accepted, then every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss is caused to the 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,” the court further pronounced.

At the crux of the matter was Mukesh Kumar, an Estate Officer accused of reallocating two Shop-cum-Office (SCO) units without proper authorization, allegedly in exchange for bribes.

Upon closer examination of the case, it became apparent that Kumar's actions not only lacked proper authorization but also demonstrated a blatant disregard for due process and judicial orders. Despite the presence of civil litigation and writ petitions against the implicated company, Kumar proceeded to issue provisional allotments, exhibiting a callous indifference to the legal framework.

The court's decision was fortified by legal precedents and established principles governing anticipatory bail. Citing previous judgments titled Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar and CBI v. Anil Sharma, among others, the court emphasised the nuanced approach required in such matters, stating, "Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

Furthermore, the court highlighted the societal ramifications of economic offences, stressing that such crimes inflict irreparable harm on the public exchequer and erode trust in governance. The court noted, “A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community."

Quoting a Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani , the court reiterated, "Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands."

In light of the severity of the allegations and the apparent malicious intent demonstrated by the petitioner, the High Court unequivocally dismissed the bail plea, stating that “the petitioner fails to make a case for anticipatory bail.”

 

Cause Title: Mukesh Kumar v State of Haryana [CRM-M-29883-2023]