corruption case - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Cancels Top Cop’s Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case, Stresses “No One Above Law”

28Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Top Cop’s Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case, Stresses “No One Above Law”

The Supreme Court held that the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The court must primarily consider the prima facie case and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial and rendering detailed findings on evidence at the anticipatory bail stage. Facts Of The Case: An IPS officer, holding the post of Additional Director General of Police in Andhra Pradesh, was accused of manipulating tenders and misappropriating public funds. The allegations involved two key transactions. First, an agreement for awareness camps on the SC/ST Act was signed on January 30, 2024, and the entire payment was approved on the very same day without any verification of the work done. Second, l...

Supreme Court Rules Unreliable Witness & Lack of Demand Proof Sink Prosecution: Govt Official Cleared

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that proving the initial demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt is essential for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient; the prosecution failed to conclusively establish demand. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not apply when demand is not proven, requiring strict construction of penal provisions. Facts Of The Case: C B Nagaraj, the Respondent, served as an Extension Officer in the Taluka Panchayath office, Davanagere. The Complainant, E R Krishnamurthy, sought a Validity Certificate for a teaching post under Category-II A, requiring a spot inspection report from Nagaraj. On February 7,...

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Andhra Liquor Scam Case

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is crucial in corruption cases involving influential accused. It clarified that confessional statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC cannot be considered at the bail stage, being inadmissible under Sections 25-26 of the Evidence Act. The Court reiterated that political vendetta allegations alone cannot justify anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence exists. It directed investigating agencies to avoid third-degree methods while preserving their right to seek custodial interrogation if warranted. The judgment reaffirmed the higher threshold for anticipatory bail compared to regular bail in serious economic offences. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from allegations of corruption ...