Corruption erodes public trust: HC denies bail to MC Faridabad officials

Observing that corruption by public servants is not just an offence against an individual but “constitutes an offence against the society at large eroding public confidence in the administration”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to officials of the Faridabad Municipal Corporation accused in an alleged Rs 12-crore corruption case.

Dismissing their pre-arrest bail plea, Justice Sumeet Goel said cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are, by nature, “serious and grave” and must be examined carefully at the bail stage.

The petitioners, posted in the Accounts Branch of the Municipal Corporation, are accused in an FIR registered on August 12, 2025, at the Faridabad Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) police station. The FIR includes charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The officials claimed they had “no role whatsoever in issuance of the work orders, technical sanction, enhancement of estimates, execution of work or measurement of works”, arguing that their duties were only clerical and procedural.

Opposing the plea, the state said the allegations revealed “active and conscious participation in a well-planned criminal conspiracy involving forgery of public records, fraudulent enhancement of work estimates and illegal siphoning of public funds to the tune of more than Rs 12 crore”.

The state further argued that the petitioners had abused their official positions to gain undue benefit, causing a huge loss to the public exchequer.

Justice Goel said: “As per the case put forth in the FIR, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners pertain to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which by their very nature are serious and grave.”

The court noted that the case involved serious economic offences, including abuse of official position, forgery of public records, criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of public funds exceeding Rs 12 crore. “Such offences strike at the very root of public administration and erode public confidence in governmental institutions,” the judge observed.

Rejecting the argument that custodial interrogation was not required because the case was based on documents, the court said: “The settled position of law is that economic offences and corruption cases are to be viewed with greater circumspection while considering pre-arrest bail.”

“The petitioners were holding responsible public office and were entrusted with powers that directly influenced the decision-making process. The allegations disclose misuse of official position and abuse of authority for extending undue benefit,” the court added, concluding that the material collected during the investigation could not be ignored at this stage.