Case Details: Suresh Chand Meena Versus State of Haryana (2025) 26 Centax 304 (P&H.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anoop Chitkara, J.
- Shri Ankur Lal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a GST Inspector, was arrested after being accused of demanding a bribe from the complainant to process a GST number application. The complainant had faced repeated rejections of his application and was contacted by the petitioner, who made the bribe demand during a meeting. The conversation was secretly recorded, and a complaint was filed with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, leading to the petitioner’s arrest and the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following his arrest and pre-trial incarceration, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking bail.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court ruled that while there was sufficient preliminary evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offense, pre-trial incarceration should not be equated with post-conviction punishment. Since the petitioner had already been in custody for a significant period, the Court granted him bail, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should be minimized. Bail was granted subject to the fulfilment of conditions, including a prohibition on committing further offenses, with the possibility of cancellation if these conditions were violated.
