Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by Veer Sain (retired Sub-Inspector, Haryana Police) in a case registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background
The complainant (Narender Singh, retired JCO and workshop owner) alleged that while investigating FIR No. 95/2022 (registered on his complaint), the petitioner visited his office on 06.04.2022, demanded and accepted ₹10,000 as illegal gratification, and further demanded ₹20,000 while threatening false implication. The incident was allegedly captured on CCTV. After representations and departmental proceedings, FIR No. 288/2025 was registered in October 2025.
Court’s Ruling
- Allegations Grave: Petitioner allegedly exploited official position during investigation to extract bribe.
- Delay in FIR: Explained by prior complaints, departmental inquiry, and material placed before vigilance authorities.
- Earlier Inquiry: Not conclusive; subsequent material justified registration of FIR.
- Need for Custodial Interrogation: Essential to trace money trail, ascertain full facts, and ensure effective investigation.
- Parameters for Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Cases: Grant only in exceptional circumstances (false implication, political motive). Not made out here. Corruption erodes public trust; courts must balance liberty with societal interest.
Petition dismissed. Observations limited to bail stage; merits of investigation untouched.
Key Takeaways
- Corruption by police officers viewed with utmost seriousness.
- Departmental findings do not bar criminal proceedings.
- Custodial interrogation vital in bribery cases involving public servants.
- Mere absence of audio in CCTV or lack of trap/recovery not sufficient at bail stage.
Case Details
Case Name: Veer Sain v. State of Haryana
Citation: CRM-M-33910-2026
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Date of Order: 06 July 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 