The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently made a significant ruling by dismissing an anticipatory bail plea filed by an Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSPV) Estate Officer implicated in a corruption case. The court decisively dismantled the petitioner's defense, which hinged on the assertion that the government hadn't incurred any losses, leading to the refusal of bail.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the case, delivered the verdict, stating that "the said argument is meaningless.”

"If this argument is accepted, then every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss is caused to the government would be entitled to bail which is neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act nor the provisions relating to cheating, forgery under Indian Penal Code,” the court further pronounced.

The focal point of the issue revolved around Mukesh Kumar, an Estate Officer accused of reallocating two Shop-cum-Office (SCO) units without proper authorization, purportedly in exchange for bribes.

Upon further scrutiny of the case, it became evident that Kumar's actions not only lacked proper authorization but also displayed a flagrant disregard for due process and judicial orders. Despite the existence of civil litigation and writ petitions against the involved company, Kumar went ahead and issued provisional allotments, showcasing a reckless indifference to the established legal framework.

The court's decision was bolstered by legal precedents and established principles governing anticipatory bail. Referencing previous judgments such as Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar and CBI v. Anil Sharma, among others, the court underscored the need for a nuanced approach in such cases. It emphasized, "Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."

The court noted, “A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community."

Quoting a Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, the court reiterated, "Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands." This reaffirmed the court's stance on the gravity of corruption and the necessity for stringent action against it.'