While recognizing that the right to participate in a funeral ceremony is important, a local court has declined to grant interim bail to an accused arrested in connection with an alleged corruption case filed eight years ago. The accused had applied for bail in order to attend his father's funeral.

The accused, employed in the Registration and Licensing Department of the UT Administration, was arrested in May 2024 in connection with a corruption case originally filed in 2016 by the Vigilance Department. The allegation against him is that he conspired with other co-accused to register a specific class of vehicles using forged documents, thereby undervaluing the sale invoice.

In the bail application, the counsel representing the accused stated that the accused's father had passed away at PGI due to illness. The counsel sought interim bail, citing a precedent set by the Madras High Court in the case of S Guruimoorthi vs the state, decided on February 11, which addressed a similar situation.

The counsel further argued that the High Court, in this judgment, had upheld that the right to participate in the funeral rites of a parent, spouse, or child falls within the ambit of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Chandigarh Police responded in their reply that the deceased father was survived by another son and a daughter.

After hearing the arguments, the court referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court, which was cited by the defense counsel. The court noted that while the Madras High Court had recognized in its judgment that prisoners could invoke the right to participate in funeral ceremonies under Article 25 of the Constitution, it had also emphasized that this right was not absolute.

The court noted that according to the police report, the deceased was survived by another son who could conduct the last rites. It further pointed out that based on the case records, the accused had been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court on January 10, 2018, in the current case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2016. This denial was due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the Investigating Officer despite multiple opportunities given. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the court stated it was not inclined to grant any interim relief to the petitioner.

The court took into account the allegation against the accused, which involved conspiring with co-accused to register vehicles on forged documents with undervalued sale invoices. Regarding the deceased, the court noted the police report indicating that another son of the deceased was available to perform the last rites.