The Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused in a CBI case alleging bribery and impersonation of public officials, observing that continued incarceration was not justified in the absence of recovery, clear prima facie evidence, or the need for further custodial interrogation.
Justice Ajay Digpaul, allowing the bail application, noted that the accused had been in custody since November 10, 2025 in connection with FIR registered by the CBI under Sections 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The case pertains to alleged impersonation of senior government functionaries and collection of money on the promise of influencing public servants. The prosecution alleged that accused acted as a conduit in the transfer and delivery of bribe money, including receipt of ₹13 lakh in Delhi and subsequent delivery of ₹18 lakh to the main accused. However, the Court recorded that no money was recovered from the petitioner, and the cash recovery was effected from the residence of another accused.
The High Court took note of the accused’s submission that no public servant was named in the FIR, nor was there any allegation of demand or acceptance of bribe by any identified or unnamed public servant. The Court further observed that the role attributed to the accused was limited to that of an alleged carrier of money and that there was no material to show that he had knowledge that the amount constituted illegal gratification.
A key factor weighed by the Court was the issue of selective arrest. Justice Digpaul pointed out that other individuals who, as per the FIR, played a crucial role in the alleged chain of events such as those who handled the money at earlier stages had not been arrested or even named as accused.
The Court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution case regarding the amount allegedly received and delivered, and the lack of explanation for the discrepancy. With respect to intercepted conversations relied upon by the CBI, the Court observed that no specific conversation had been placed on record to show that the petitioner demanded, negotiated, or knowingly delivered bribe money intended to influence a public servant.
Recording that the accused’s mobile phone had been seized, voice samples taken, and that custodial interrogation was no longer required, the Court held that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. Accordingly, the accused was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including joining investigation as required, not leaving Delhi without prior permission, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the trial on merits.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Mr. Manu Gupta, Mr. Naman and Ms. Shagun Chopra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, SPP
