HC denies anticipatory bail to Faridabad MC officials in Rs 12-crore scandal
The high court held that corruption by public servants erodes public confidence in administration
Holding that corruption by public servants is not merely 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 Faridabad Municipal Corporation accused in a case involving alleged siphoning of public funds exceeding Rs 12 crore.
Dismissing the pre-arrest bail plea, Justice Sumeet Goel asserted allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act are by their very nature “serious and grave” and require greater circumspection at the bail stage.
The petitioner-public servants were seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered on August 12, 2025, at Faridabad ACB police station for criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and other offences under the IPC and also the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The petitioners, posted in Accounts Branch of the Municipal Corporation, claimed they had “no role whatsoever in issuance of the work orders, technical sanction, enhancement of estimates, execution of work or measurement of works”, and argued that their duties were merely clerical and procedural.
The State, on the other hand, strongly opposed the plea, asserting that the allegations disclosed “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 crores”. The counsel contended that the petitioners, being public servants, had abused their official position for obtaining undue advantage and caused loss to the public exchequer.
Justice Goel asserted: “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.”
Justice Goel asserted it emerged from the record’s perusal that the allegations in the FIR pertained to a serious economic offence involving abuse of official position by public servants, 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.”
Rejecting the plea that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the case was document-based, the court held: “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 a responsible public office at the relevant time and were entrusted with powers which had a direct bearing on the decision making process in question. The allegations disclose misuse of official position and abuse of authority for extending undue benefit. At this stage, the material collected during investigation cannot be brushed aside as vague or baseless.”
