The Supreme Court has extended anticipatory bail to a man facing corruption charges while strongly disapproving of the manner in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court handled his plea.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court had adopted a “cryptic and unusual” approach by seeking an explanation from the police for not arresting the accused, rather than deciding the application on its merits.
The case arose from an FIR registered in 2021 under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, fearing arrest, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. Instead of adjudicating the plea, the High Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to explain why a chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC had not been filed and why the petitioner had not been arrested over the past four years.
Challenging this order before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he had initially believed no proceedings were pending against him, as he had been reinstated in service following the revocation of his suspension in September 2023. His apprehension of arrest arose only after receiving a notice from the Deputy Commissioner directing him to appear before the Economic Offences Branch.
The Bench noted that the High Court had already granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused alleged to have actually accepted the bribe. It emphasised that the fact that the petitioner had remained at liberty for four years without arrest was, by itself, a valid ground to exercise discretion in favour of anticipatory bail.
The Apex Court observed, “Either the High Court should have allowed the application granting anticipatory bail or it should have rejected it on merits. We do not approve the manner in which the matter has been dealt with".
Ultimately, the Apex Court decided to put the controversy to rest, holding that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer.
Case Title: Gursewak Singh vs. State of Punjab
Case No: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234/2025
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Amit Gupta, Prannv Dhawan, Muskan Nagpal, Arun Singh, M/s.Mitter & Mitter Co. (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vivek Jain (A.A.G.), Siddhant Sharma (AOR)
Picture Source :
