Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The principles on grant of Anticipatory Bail are well settled, specifically when dealing with serious offences like corruption and there is sufficient evidence pointing towards the role of the individual in such activities. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488. The relevant extracts are as under:
“21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous…….
… … …
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption.” {Para 40}
41. In the present case, the manner in which the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the raid being conducted at his premises, evaded participation in the investigation and rather gave instructions to prevent the raid and for disappearance of evidence, and also operated his bank locker the very next day, shows the petitioner's mala fides. Undisputedly, the son of the petitioner despite being served a notice, did not handover the key of the bank locker to the CBI. The details of other intercepted calls prima facie also points towards the involvement of the petitioner.
42. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence, prima facie, show that the allegation against the petitioner cannot be lightly brushed aside at this stage.
43. In conspectus of the facts and circumstances, as noted herein above, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. The application for Anticipatory Bail is accordingly dismissed.
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
(Before Shalinder Kaur, J.)
Arun Kumar Jindal Vs Central Bereau of Investigation
Bail Appln. 1705/2025 and CRL.M.A. 13567/2025
Decided on May 9, 2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3026.
