Case Law Details
Jatin Salwan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition seeking regular bail in a corruption case, holding that allegations involving solicitation of illegal gratification to influence judicial outcomes strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system. The petitioner, a practising advocate, was arrested pursuant to an FIR registered on 14.08.2025 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case originated from a complaint alleging demand of ₹30 lakh for securing a favourable judicial order in a divorce matter pending before courts at Bathinda.
The complaint was verified by the CBI through recorded telephonic conversations, which prima facie substantiated the demand. A trap was laid on the same day, during which a co-accused allegedly accepted ₹4 lakh as part payment of the demanded bribe, purportedly at the petitioner’s behest. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail application had already been rejected by the Special Judge, CBI.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the alleged demand was misconstrued professional fees, and that the essential ingredients of Section 7A were not satisfied as he was neither a public servant nor competent to influence the concerned judicial officer. Age, medical ailments, completion of investigation, and prolonged custody were also cited in support of bail. The CBI opposed bail, arguing that the allegations were grave, supported by verification material, recorded conversations, and recovery of tainted money, and that such conduct by an advocate erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court emphasised that corruption cases, particularly those alleging misuse of influence in judicial proceedings, require a cautious and stringent approach in bail matters. It held that Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies to any person who accepts or obtains undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. The Court found that the prima facie material, including verification reports and trap proceedings, could not be ignored at the bail stage. The petitioner’s age, professional standing, completion of investigation, and custody of about five and a half months were held not to be decisive factors warranting bail. Medical grounds were also rejected after assessment.
Observing that when an advocate solicits or accepts illegal gratification under the pretext of influencing a judicial outcome, it constitutes a “sacrilegious affront” to the judiciary, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail. The petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to seek bail afresh after examination of key prosecution witnesses, and with clarification that observations would not affect the merits of the trial.
Author Bio
