Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Retired Sub-Inspector Accused of Extorting Complainant Whose Case He Was Investigating

Justice Sumeet Goel declined pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS, holding that corruption by a police officer misusing investigative authority demands custodial interrogation and cannot be resolved at bail stage.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 6 July 2026 dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Veer Sain, a retired Sub-Inspector of Haryana Police, who faced FIR No. 288 dated 13 October 2025 for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice Sumeet Goel, sitting singly, held that the gravity of the accusation — a police officer allegedly exploiting his investigative authority to extract illegal gratification from a complainant whose criminal case was under his control — called for custodial interrogation. The petitioner's arguments about evidentiary gaps and a prior departmental exoneration were treated as disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication at the pre-arrest bail stage.

The Allegation: Bribery During an Active Police Investigation

The FIR arose from a complaint by Narender Singh, a retired Junior Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army and proprietor of a vehicle repair workshop in Faridabad, Haryana. In March 2022, Singh had lodged FIR No. 95 dated 12 March 2022 under Sections 379-B, 323, 506 and 34 IPC. Veer Sain, then a serving Sub-Inspector, was entrusted with the investigation. A cross-case, FIR No. 96 dated 12 March 2022, was simultaneously registered against Singh himself.

According to the complainant, Veer Sain visited his office on 6 April 2022 at about 7:15 PM and demanded illegal gratification. Under fear and coercion, Singh paid Rs. 10,000. The petitioner then allegedly demanded a further Rs. 20,000 and threatened to implicate Singh in a false criminal case if the matter was disclosed. The complainant alleged the entire episode was captured on CCTV cameras installed at his office.

Singh subsequently made representations before vigilance authorities. Departmental proceedings were initiated against Veer Sain. On receipt of a fresh complaint and supporting material, FIR No. 288 was eventually registered on 13 October 2025 — over three years after the alleged incident.

Petitioner's Arguments: Delay, Departmental Exoneration, and Evidentiary Gaps

Counsel for Veer Sain, Mr. Siddharth Singh, pressed several arguments in favour of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The first was delay. The alleged incident occurred on 6 April 2022, but the FIR was not registered until 13 October 2025 — a gap of more than three years that, counsel contended, demonstrated the complaint was an afterthought.

The second was the inquiry report dated 18 January 2023, prepared by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, which reportedly exonerated Veer Sain of the bribery allegation. That report specifically recorded that the CCTV footage contained no audio recording capable of establishing a demand for illegal gratification. Counsel argued that once the inquiry officer had returned findings in favour of the petitioner, registering an FIR without fresh evidence amounted to an abuse of process. The report dated 17 March 2023, which reversed the earlier findings, was attacked as arbitrary, mala fide and legally untenable.

On the substantive law, counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan to submit that proof of demand and acceptance constitutes the sine qua non for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Since the CCTV footage lacked audio, no demand could be proved, and the prosecution rested entirely on the interested testimony of the complainant — a man himself involved in earlier criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel added that Veer Sain had already undergone departmental proceedings and suffered punishment by way of withholding of increments, making criminal proceedings at this stage a form of double harassment. The petitioner was a retired police officer of about 55 years of age with fixed roots in society, willing to join the investigation as and when required, and undertaking not to tamper with evidence or influence any witness.

State's Opposition: Gravity of the Charge and Need for Custodial Interrogation

Senior DAG Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla opposed the petition. The State's central argument was the gravity of the accusation: a law enforcement officer had allegedly used his position over a complainant's pending criminal case to coerce payment of a bribe, striking at the foundation of public administration.

The State contended that the departmental inquiry report relied upon by the petitioner was merely an administrative assessment and could not substitute a criminal investigation pursuant to registration of an FIR. More pointedly, the departmental proceedings had ultimately concluded with findings adverse to Veer Sain and resulted in major punishment — which showed the allegations were not found to be false or baseless.

On the investigation, the State urged that custodial interrogation was necessary to examine the alleged receipt of illegal gratification and the material collected during departmental proceedings. Granting pre-arrest bail at this stage, the State argued, would impede the ongoing investigation and obstruct recovery.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Goel opened his analysis by reproducing a passage from the Supreme Court's judgment in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 320, which sets the threshold for anticipatory bail in serious corruption cases. That judgment held that anticipatory bail in such matters can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated, or that the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous.

Against that standard, Justice Goel found the petitioner's case wanting. The allegation was that a police officer had exploited the authority vested in him by law to obtain illegal gratification from a complainant whose liberty and legal rights were directly affected by an investigation under his control. Such allegations, if established, would constitute a serious abuse of public office undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court dealt squarely with the petitioner's evidentiary arguments. The contention about absence of proof of demand and acceptance was characterised as a matter of trial requiring appreciation of evidence — not a ground to be examined at the anticipatory bail stage. At that stage, the court need only assess whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence and whether custodial interrogation is necessary. Both conditions were satisfied.

On the departmental inquiry, Justice Goel accepted that departmental findings are not conclusive proof of guilt in a criminal case. But he noted that the proceedings had ultimately ended in punishment being imposed, which showed that the allegations were not found to be completely baseless. The plea of false implication was a disputed question of fact that could only be adjudicated after completion of investigation or during trial.

The court also applied the test from State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, which holds that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect protected by a pre-arrest bail order — and that pre-arrest bail in corruption cases can reduce such interrogation to a mere ritual.

Justice Goel observed that the investigating agency had specifically stated before the court that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain complete details and trace the money trail. No plausible cause had been shown at this stage from which it could be deciphered that Veer Sain had been falsely implicated.

Outcome

CRM-M-33910-2026 was dismissed as devoid of merits on 6 July 2026. The court directed that nothing said in the order shall be deemed an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.