Conspiracies pestering the political leaders of the country display convoluted challenges to democratic governance, mandating an exhaustive examination of the legal frameworks, judicial precedents, and democratic discourse. In recent years, India has witnessed various prominent cases engaging the speculative conspiracies against the political leaders, accentuating the graveness of the issues. There is an ardent advocacy for the protection of free speech and expression, acknowledging them as an essential backbone of democracy. Scholiasts argue that strict legal measures against the conspiracies may violate these fundamental rights, smothering the conflict and impeding the sturdy public discourse. This article focuses on discerning the legal implications, landmark judicial decision, and wider democratic considerations encompassing such conspiracies. Moreover, this article also sheds light on the phenomenon of conspiracies as a tactical tool used by the political leaders to satisfy their personal interests and conduct the conspiracies to achieve mainly four prime objectives, namely, (i) to smirch the opponents, (ii) to muster the supporters, (iii) to disperse the blame and liability, and (iv) to sabotage the institutions that stand as a threat to their power.  This article particularly focuses on the authoritarian, populist, and conservative leaders, who are more inclined to spreading conspiracies during the periods of the societal tumult.

KEYWORDS – Conspiracy, Political Leaders, Democracy, Legal Framework, Indian Penal Code,1860, Sedition, Hate Speech, Judicial Precedents, Democratic Discourse, Landmark Cases, Freedom of Speech, Public Order, Populist Leaders, Authoritarianism, Democratic Values, Corruption, Electoral Malfeasance, Media, Civil Society, Enforcement Agencies


Conspiracies targeting the political leaders exhibit a substantial challenge to democratic sturdiness and governance worldwide. It is interesting that leaders, who often brandish vital resources, privileges, and power, disseminate conspiracies that typically surfaces the high-power groups as acting with malign intentions. It is more often that the promulgation of the conspiracies is not to challenge the power in wider terms but rather to pester the specific individuals or communities or groups whom they anticipate as a threat to their own authority.
The Landmark Cases like Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1962)[1] stead fasted the criterion of sedition, avowing the criticism of the Governmental actions, however cogent and valid, does not amount to sedition unless it foments violence or public disorder. However, the line between licit criticism and seditious speech remains muzzy, electrifying the debates on free speech and political contrasts. Judicial Precedents play a vital role in carving out the legal interpretations. In Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)[2], the Supreme Court of India upheld the right of the citizens to criticize public officials or political leaders, stressing the gravity of sturdy public debates in a democracy. Reciprocally, in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015)[3], the court repealed the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized online speech deemed insolent or ominous. These judgments reflect a fragile balance between protecting the grandeur of the political leaders and upholding the rights of the citizens to be defiant. Even after possessing the legal safety, challenges prevail due to the dynamic nature of the society and the inverse social media amplification in sprawling misinformation and facilitating the dissemination of conspiracies, displaying the unprecedented challenges for governance. Occurrences, like the sprawling of bogus news and concocted images pestering the political leaders accentuate the need for subtle regulatory measures that balance the Freedom of Expression with the accountability to tame misinformation. Conspiracies tend to accumulate after events like a terrorist attack, blasts (Malegaon Blast Case[4]), global pandemics (Covid-19) outbreaks, or a pugnacious presidential election. The political sphere is a prolific ground for the conspiracies, especially entangled with the verbosity of populist leaders who clout the conspiracies for the purposes of strategies.
Furthermore, the politicization of the law enforcement agencies and selective prosecution aggravate apprehension concerning the abuse of legal provisions to reticence conflicts. The high-profile cases, such as the arrests of the activists under the charges of sedition for expressing conflicting views, highlighting the deterring effect on Freedom of Speech and Expression. Incidents like these uprear questions about the independence of the judiciary and the requirement for the judicial inattention to avert the executive thwart. In traversing these intricacies, the discourse in the democracy plays a pivotal role. The civil society, media, as well as the academia furnish as watchdogs, inspecting the Governmental actions and endorsing for clarity and liability. Public awareness campaigns and initiatives fostering media education can empower citizens to distinguish the facts from fiction, alleviating the influence of the misinformation and conspiracies.


In the ravelled drapery of the Indian politics, the prodigy of the political leader of a party targeting the political leader of a rival party has persisted throughout the history, marked by a quagmire of intra-party rivalries and inter-party rivalries as well. Recent years have seen a escalation in the exertion of various strategies by the political leaders to annihilate or smear their opponents. From character assassination to electoral malfeasance, and in extreme cases, even stooping down to physical harm, the political arena has witnessed a gamut of unethical operations. Historically, cases like the assassination of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, serve as a distressing mnemonic of the fanatical lengths to which the political rivals may go in chase of power. Moreover, the recent incidents of the defection and horse-trading assemblies accentuate the constancy of the conspiracies steered at subverting the Governments.
In 2008, the Pune police convoyed by the Delhi police arrested 16 individuals on accusations of being involved in a Maoist conspiracy to topple the Government and assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as foment an insurrection against the ruling BJP. The alleged conspiracy was connected to the Elgaar Parishad Event held in Pune in December,2017 which memorialized a historic Dalit victory, where skirmishes broke out the following day and the police transferred their focus from local provocateurs to a conjectural Maoist plot. The arrested individuals include Human Rights Activists, Lawyers, Writers, and Professors, with no previous records of violence. The NIA dismissed the claims of planted evidence. The case reflects a pattern of quelling under the Modi Government, with the use of anti-terror laws to silence opposition voices and erode democratic norms[5].
The 2G Scam is a integration of three cases, one instituted by the Enforcement Directorate and two cases instituted by the CBI in 2011. A report by the CAG of India disclosed that 2G licenses for mobile networks were sold at cheaper prices rather than carrying free and fair auctions. The prime accusations on A Raja were of assigning airwaves and licenses for cell phone networks in swap of bribes. DMK MP Kanimozhi, as per accusations put on him, played a major role in aiding the 217 Crore bribe from Swan Telecom to Kalaingar TV, the agitprop arm of DMK party. Post the judgment of this case was pronounce, the then PM Manmohan Singh stated that the judgment should be followed but Kanimozhi stated that she refused to target anyone but mended that there was conspiracy and that a lot of people were involved in this. In this case, politicians as well as private officials of the United Progressive Alliance and coalition Government of India were allegedly involved in selling or allotting 122 2G Spectrum Licenses[6].
The recent cases illustrate the depth of the political conspiracies in India. In July, 2019, the coalition Government of Karnataka, incorporating of the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Janata Dal, faced an intense crisis. The 2019 Karnataka political conspiracy stands out as an egregious example, where accusations of horse-trading and bribery emerged, especially the Bharatiya Janata Party, being charged of attempting to contriver the tergiversation to crumple the government, steering to the resignation of numerous legislators and consequent collapse of the State Government. The resignation of these legislators menaced the sturdiness of the coalition Government led by Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. The crisis escalated into a political stalemate, with profound negotiations and legal battles emanating between the ruling coalition and the opposition. In July, 2019, the trust vote in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly resulted in the collapse of the Kumaraswamy-led Government, paving the way for the BJP to assume power[7].
In March, 2020, Madhya Pradesh tumbled into a political crisis following the resignation of 22 congress MLAs led by Jyotiraditya Scindia. The resignation intimidated the viability of the congress government led by the Chief Minister Kamal Nath, as the ruling party lost its majority in the state assembly. The crisis in Madhya Pradesh was deluged by the internal animosity within the congress party, intensified by alleged desolation of key leaders and dissatisfaction over distribution of power and resources. Jyotiraditya Scindia, a eminent leader, ratted to the BJP, citing discontent with the congress leadership. Imarti Devi, a former minister termed it as a conspiracy[8].
One of the most eminent recent cases of political leader targeting the rival is the 2020 political crisis in Rajasthan. The state witnessed a high-stakes power struggle between the then chief minister, Ashok Gehlot, and his former Deputy, Sachin Pilot. Pilot along with a group of rebel MLAs, was accused of conspiring to crumple the Gehlot-led Government. The crisis involved the allegations of horse-trading, with both the side accusing each other of assaying to lure legislators with offers of money and positions. The situation escalated when Pilot and his supporters were debarred from the party, stating the extremity of political rivalries within the congress party[9].
The Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 21st March, 2024 evening, on accusations of corruption and money laundering in the articulation and implementation of the Delhi Government’s excise policy for 2021-2022, which was later revoked. The New Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-2022 was introduced in the November,2021 aiming at transmuting the liquor retail landscape in the capital. The objective of the New Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-2022 was to maximize revenues for the state, scuffle the sale of the counterfeit alcohol, and boost the experience of the consumers. However, the policy confronted flaming opposition and accusations of procedural irregularities, ultimately leading to annulment of New Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-2022 on the 1st of August, 2022[10]. In response to these scenarios, the AAP claimed that Amit Shah, the Home Minister of India, in an interview made it clear that Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED under a conspiracy. A party leader, Atishi, addressing a press conference alleged that the Home Minister Shah made it clear with a news channel that the ED had the intention to arrest Arvind Kejriwal from the very first time it sent summons to him[11].
The object dragging the politicians to conspire against their rivalries are as divergent as the political landscape itself. Personal aspirations often purvey as a dynamic stimulus, fuelling the implacable chasing of power and authority. The recent cases have unveiled how pushy politicians judiciously adapt conspiracies to arise the hierarchical ladder within their parties, often at the expense of ethical principles and democratic values. Moreover, the protection of ingrained interests serves as a driving force behind political conspiracies.
Apart from internal power struggle, political leaders in India also face menace from discontented citizens who anticipate them as corrupt, incompetent, or disconnected from the grassroots. Public anger and frustration can manifest in various forms, ranging from protests and demonstrations to online trolling and physical attacks. The rise of the social media has provided a platform for ordinary citizens to express their grievances and hold politicians accountable, sometimes stooping to conspiracies to explain perceived injustices.


Several Landmark Judgments by the Indian Courts have shaped the jurisprudence encircling the conspiracies against the political leaders. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in cases like the Kehar Singh Vs. State (1908) and State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) have traced the elements of the conspiracy and understood the graveness of such offenses as well as the evidentiary standards necessary for the purpose of prosecution.

  1. Kehar Singh Vs. State (1908)[12]

In the case of Kehar Singh Vs. State (1908), Kehar Singh was convicted for conspiring to murder the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Kehar Singh under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for criminal conspiracy. The court stressed on the fact that the offense of criminal conspiracy needs the commission of the main offense for its completion. Even if the conspiracy isn’t committed, the mere agreement to commit the crime itself constitutes an offense. This judgment explicated the principle that conspiracy is an independent offense distinguished from the substantive offense pondered by the conspirators. It accentuated the graveness of the conspiracies against the political leaders and asserted the importance of holding the conspirators liable, irrespective of the success or failure in the commission of the crime.

  1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996)[13]

The case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996), Som Nath Thapa was accused of criminal conspiracy to murder a Member of Parliament, Mr. Mohan Delkar. The Supreme Court of India replicated the principles laid down in the Kehar Singh Vs. State (1908) and further refined the elements of conspiracy. The court stressed on the fact that for proving conspiracy, it is not necessary to establish a formal agreement; even a tacit understanding or a meeting of minds to chase a common unlawful objective would be sufficient. Moreover, the Supreme Court of India illuminated that the offense of conspiracy needs both an agreement as well as an intention to commit an unlawful act. It further stressed on the fact that mere presence at the scene of the crime or association with the main accused does not automatically imply participation in the conspiracy. Instead, the prosecution may establish a meeting of minds amongst the conspirators to achieve the unlawful objective. This judgment provided clarity on the evidentiary necessities for proving an evidentiary requirement for proving conspiracy and reinforced the principles that conspiracies against the political leaders are grave offenses deserving strict punishment.


Conspiracy against the political leaders has a adverse impact on the democratic process, posing a menace to the radical principles of transparency, liability, and informed decision making. In India, the chronicity of conspiracies erodes public trust in political institutions and nurture an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and segmentation. When citizens anticipate political leaders as targets of conspiracies, they may become discontent with the democratic system, leading to disregard from civic participation. Moreover, the spread of conspiracies can aggravate social divisions and obstruct constructive dialogue, hampering the exchange of ideas and the utterance of comprehensive policies. The corrosion of trust in political leaders and institutions subvert the democratic fabric, exhausting the social contract between the Government and the governed.


In skirmishing the conspiracies against the political leaders, promoting a sturdy and inclusive public discourse is incumbent to uphold democratic values and strengthen civic engagement. Civil society organizations, media outlets, and political institutions play a crucial role in assisting transparency, liability, and fact-based dialogue. Civil society initiatives such as fast-checking organizations and advocacy groups can refute false narratives and counter propaganda, empowering citizens with veracious information to make informed decision. Similarly, responsible journalism plays a pivotal role in holding power accountable and scrutinizing the actions of political leaders. By adhering to ethical standards of reporting and providing truth and accountability. Moreover, political institution must uphold democratic norms and principles, ensuring that mechanisms for liability and transparency are sturdy and effective. By promoting open dialogues, respecting dissenting voices, and fostering a culture of mutual respect and understanding, India can strengthen its democratic institution and fortify the tenacity of its democratic discourse against the corrosive effects of conspiracies.


The Legal Frameworks governing the conspiracy against the political leaders in India primarily stem from statutory provisions outlined in the India Penal Code,1860 and the other related laws. These legal frameworks provide the basis for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing conspiracies against the political leaders in India. They aim to uphold the rule of law, protect democratic institutions, and ensure liability for those involved in undermining the democratic process through illegal means.

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860[14]
    Section 120A – Definition of Criminal Conspiracy –
    This section defines the criminal conspiracy as when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means.
    Section 120B – Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy – This section prescribes punishment for conspiracy, which may include imprisonment and fines. It specifies that individual involved in a conspiracy shall be punished in the same manner as if they had committed the substantive offense themselves.
    Section 124A – Sedition – This section prescribes the punishment for sedition which shall include punishment with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years and fine.
  1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)[15]
    The UAPA aims to prevent the unlawful activities, including conspiracies against the political leader that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
    Provisions within the UAPA empower the law enforcement agencies to take preventive actions against individuals or organizations engaged in conspiracies aimed at promoting secessionism, insurgency, or terrorism.
  2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[16]
    Section 195(b)(iii) – Prosecution for contempt of lawful of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence –
    This section deals with the prosecution for offenses related to giving false evidence or fabricating false evidences in judicial proceedings. This section, specifically, empowers the court to take cognizance of such offenses on a complaint made by a public servant concerned, or upon the direction of the court.
    Section 196 – Prosecution for offenses against the state and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offense – This section deals with the prosecution for offenses against the state or public servants. It mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offenses punishable under Section 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, except on a complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the State Government or some officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government. This section ensures that offenses against the State or public servants are prosecuted with the requisite authorization from the State Government or competent authority, thereby safeguarding against frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions and ensuring due process in the legal proceedings.
  3. Prevention of Corruption Act,1988[17]
    Section 7 – Offenses relating to public servant being bribed –
    This section deals with the offenses of a public servant accepting bribes or gratifications for performing official duties.
    Section 8 – Offenses relating to bribing of a public servant – This section pertains to offering or giving bribes to public servants to influence their actions.
    Section 9 – Offenses relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation – This section addresses the offenses of taking gratification for exercising personal influence with a public servant


Conspiracy against political leaders stands as a dismaying menace to the very structure of democracy, requiring an inclusive response extensive of legal, enforcement, and societal dimensions. In a nation like India, where democracy is not just a governance exemplar but a treasured value integral to the individualism of the nation, the prevalence of the conspiracies against political figures undermines the foundational principles of transparency, liability, and civil participation. It is imperative to recognize the multifaceted nature of this challenge and undertake concerted efforts to address it effectively. At its core, the fight against the conspiracy demands a sturdy legal framework that not only defines and punishes such acts but also ensures due process and safeguards against abuse of power. The existing legal provisions, as delineated in statues such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, lays down the foundation for prosecuting conspirators. However, continual review and adaption of these laws to evolving circumstances are essential to keep pace with the ever-changing landscape of political dynamics and technological advancements. Moreover, effective enforcement mechanisms are crucial to translating legal provisions into tangible action. Law enforcement agencies must be equipped with the necessary resources, training, and expertise to investigate and prosecute conspiracies against political leaders swiftly and impartially. Additionally, inter-agency coordination and cooperation are vital to combating the complex web of conspiracies that may span across jurisdiction and involve diverse actors.
The fight against the conspiracy against political leaders is not merely a legal or enforcement challenge but a collective responsibility that transcends institutional boundaries. It requires a concerted effort from all segments of society to safeguard the integrity of democratic institution and principles. By postering a cultural of accountability, transparency, and civic participation, India can effectively mitigate the threats posed by conspiracies, thereby fortifying its democratic edifice for generations to come.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Sruti Sikha Maharana


[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/

[2] https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/7986.pdf

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/

[4] https://primelegal.in/2024/04/27/the-malegaon-blast-case-unravelling-legal-complexities-in-indias-fight-against-terrorism/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/12/bhima-koregaon-case-india-conspiracy-modi

[6] https://thewire.in/business/2g-accused-acquitted-happened-scam-wasnt

[7] https://www.businesstoday.in/pti-feed/story/bjp-spoke-of-fighting-corruption-and-resorted-to-horse-trading-the-same-day-kumaraswamy-159458-2019-01-19

[8] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/case-against-madhya-pradesh-congress-chief-jitu-patwari-for-remarks-against-bjp-leader-5581552

[9] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/2020-congress-crisis-gehlot-behind-phone-tap-of-pilot-rebels-claims-ex-aide-of-former-cm-9289290/

[10] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/watch-what-was-the-new-delhi-excise-policy-all-about-and-why-is-arvind-kejriwal-in-trouble/article67983794.ece

[11] https://www.business-standard.com/politics/ed-intended-to-arrest-cm-kejriwal-from-day-1-says-aap-minister-atishi-124050300498_1.html

[12] https://lawfoyer.in/kehar-singh-and-others-v-state-delhi-administration-2/#:~:text=This%20case%20is%20also%20known,influenced%20Beant%20Singh%20for%20assassination.

[13] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/702724/

[14] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2263/1/aA1860-45.pdf

[15] https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1967-37.pdf

[16] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure%2C_1973.pdf

[17] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15302/1/pc_act,_1988.pdf


“Meaningless” To Request Bail In Corruption Cases stating that the Government Has Not Been Affected: P & H High Court

Case Title:-Mukesh Kumar Versus State of Harayana

Case No:- CRM-M-29883-2023

Decided on:-20-03-2024


Facts of the case:-

The case’s basic facts are that, pursuant to section 17a of the pc act, the state government granted permission for the registration of an enquiry (number 07) dated 10.05.2019 in gurugram through letter no.58/52/2018-iv(1) dated 03.05.2019. Transmitted through the office of the director general of the state vigilance bureau, haryana panchkula, and the additional principal secretary of the haryana government’s vigilance department, against the petitioner/accused mukesh solanki estate officer, hud gurugram, and rishi raj, director of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering private limited, on may 10, 2019.

 That during the investigation, it was discovered that m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Had applied to the huda department, sector 14, gurugram, to take part in the s.c.o. No. 08 and 30 open auctions in sector 23/23a, gurugram. Thereafter, due to highest bid of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, on december 18, 1997, he was given s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd., for having the highest bid, and s.c.o. No. 13 of r.r. Construction, for having the highest bid, for sector 23, 23a, gurugram. 10% of the total cost was paid in cash at the location by the aforementioned company. 15% of the total was then required to be deposited within a month after the allotment letter’s issuing date. The huda department. Regarding this matter, huda, gurugram dispatched registered letters no. 284 and no. 285 to m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd and r.r., respectively, on december 18, 1997. Buildings, although the postal service returned these letters to the huda office stating that “no such company exists with this name and style at this address.” However, the aforementioned businesses’ offices are still situated at the same address as of right now. The 15% sum was not deposited by either of the aforementioned companies within the allotted time. Then, on 10.04.2018, estate officer -1, huda, sector-14, gurugram, forfeited 10% of the paid money and canceled the s.c.o. Nos. 08, 13, & 30 allotment orders in sector 23/23a, gurugram, via letter dated 10.04. 1998. The preceding the addresses of m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. And r.r. Constructions got the aforementioned orders and notices. The owners of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Company and r.r. Constructions thereafter attended the huda sector-14, gurgum office on april 15, 2018, and filed their applications to challenge the cancellation of the allocation.

 The application was submitted to the chief administrator of huda, haryana, panchkula, after first being reviewed by the estate officer, huda, gurgwarn, administrator, and gurugram. The changes and appeals were rejected all the way up to the commissioner and secretary of the haryana town and country planning department. On february 20, 2000, the revision petition was likewise dismissed. Following that, on october 8, 2004, m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Filed a plea before the district consumer district redressal forum in gurugram; nevertheless, the same was however on august 1st, 2008, the same was also dismissed. On november 30, 2011, the state consumer dispute redressal commission denied the appeal as well. After that, they said nothing. On april 21, 2010, in ateli, district mahendergarh, rishi raj, director of r.r. Foundation pvt. Ltd., obtained a registered g.p.a. Of s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in favor of sh. V.k. Goyal, son of r.c. Goyal, who resides at c.b.h. 11, narayana, new delhi. Rishi raj ceased to be the owner of the aforementioned scos as a result of their cancellation. In collusion with sh. V.k. Goyal and other defendants, rishi raj created false documentation and completed the g.p.a. Of the two aforementioned s.c.o.s in his favor.

Subsequently, about s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30, sector 23/23, gurugram, g.p.a. Subsequently, g.p.a. Holder sh. V.k. Goyal filed c.w.p. Nos. 12629/2016 and 8565 of 2018 in the hon’ble punjab and haryana high court in chandigarh, seeking re-allotment of both the aforementioned s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in sector 23/23, gurugram. Hud a written declaration on merits was filed in this civil writ petitions. While the aforementioned cases were still before the hon’ble high court, on march 7, 2018, v.k. Goyal, the holder of the g.p.a., made a representation before the government. This was typically forwarded to the chief administrator’s office at hud, haryana, panchkula. The administrator of hu”a, panchkula has been downmarked for further action by the chief administrator of huda, panchkula. After that, the administrator at the time, sh. Ram swaroop verma.

Petitioner Contentions:-

Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate submits that petitioner is Unaware of the said case at the time of filing of present petition and as such this fact Was not concealed and otherwise it would have also no bearing in the present petition. Moreover, connected petition for bail relates to the aforesaid FIR. Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim Anticipatory bail and the said order remained continuing and on 01.09.2023, when the Matter listed before this court, interim order was extended when the petitioner Voluntarily stated that they would have no objection if this Court while extending the Interim order imposes any stringent conditions including declaration of assets of Petitioner as well as his spouse. Subsequently, on 14.09.2023, petitioner’s counsel Submitted that they have voluntarily complied with the order dated 01.09.2023 and Handed over the affidavits to the State counsel.

Respondent Contentions:-

Learned counsel for Respondent stated that On 22.02.2024, State counsel responded that he had accepted money Through his portal on 03.07.2018 without any authortization and symbolic possession Was given on 23.08.2018, whereas allotment was provisional. It was further informed That said allotment was cancelled on 30.08.2018 and symbolic possession was also Recalled and in fact allottee was never put in physical possession of the SCOs in question.

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

Court stated that in the analysis of the above arguments points out that petitioner was required to Wait for the final decision by CEO, when he was specifically asked, but he issued Provisional allotment, his malicious conduct is established when he handed over Symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. The another reason Which points towards the petitioner’s mis-conduct is that he was aware of the pendency Of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while Issuance of provisional allotment. As concerned for the inquiry on his part qua non-Delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA as well as before Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner also ignored and by-Passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court. Petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the Government and the said argument is meaningless. If this argument is accepted, then Every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss caused to 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. In fact the petitioner tried to avoid allotment from the CEO at Panchkula by ensuring that the matter is closed at Faridabad itself. Later on when the Writ petition which was filed by the beneficiaries was withdrawn, then the matter was Enquired by CEO Panchkula, which resulted in further enquiry and revealed the Malicious intent and participation of petitioner. petitioner fails To make a case for anticipatory bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the Case’s merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to These comments. Given the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of the Petitioner, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Petition dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, also Stand disposed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace









Case title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Case no.: SPL(Crl.) appeal no. 11654 of 2013

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath


The appellant has filed a criminal appeal with the Supreme Court of India, contesting the decision made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh on March 23, 2023, which dismissed the Criminal Revision the appellant had filed in opposition to the Special Judge’s Bathinda order of March 5, 2018, which had allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoning the appellant and three other police department officials.

Punjab Agro Food grains Corporation Ltd. of Bathinda filed a complaint against Devraj Miglani at the Phul Police Station in the District of Bathinda, which was registered as a FIR. The complaint alleged that Devraj had misappropriated paddy. The investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda, where the appellant was posted as an Inspector and tasked with investigating the crime. The accused, Devraj, was arrested. He was granted police remand and then transferred to judicial custody.

And the informant in this case, Puneet Kumar Miglani, is the accused Devraj’s son. According to the informant in this case, on September 6, 2013, Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, the accused Devraj’s niece, at her workplace, the Bathinda branch of the SBI, demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip purportedly written by the accused Devraj, indicating that the holder of the slip may be provided with the said amount. Devraj and his niece Ritu allegedly conversed on Head Constable Kikkar Singh’s mobile phone. The informant came to know of the said demand by Kikkar Singh. He went to the bank, took the slip, and after recording a conversation between his wife and his father, he presented it to the learned Magistrate, along with a complaint.

The local police were directed to register the complaint and investigate it further. Following a thorough investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police Janak Singh, it was determined that the allegations against Head Constable Kikkar Singh were prima facie true, and a First Information Report was filed at the police station Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda. During the investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the informant, informant’s wife, Devraj, and others provided statements. Following the investigation, a police report against Head Constable Kikkar Singh only.

The date of both trials, the trial arising out of the FIR against Devraj and the trial arising out of the FIR against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, coincided on September 29, 2014. The appellant went on to depose, supporting both the prosecution’s case and his own investigation of Devraj. On that date, in the trial against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, informant Puneet Miglani provided additional evidence as PW 1. On the specified date, he completed both his chief and cross examinations. In addition, he prepared and filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant and three other police officials.

The trial court dismissed the application due to a lack of sanction under both the PC Act and the Cr.P.C. The said order was successfully challenged before the High Court, and the High Court, in an order dated 23.01.2018, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh order, ignoring the issue of sanction. The High Court believed that no sanction was required. The Trial Court granted the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials in accordance with the remand. The appellant challenged the 05.03.2018 order in the High Court.

The high court dismissed the said revision in the impugned order dated March 23, 2023. Aggrieved, and it is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.


Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. deals with “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence”,

406 of IPC deals with “Punishment for criminal breach of trust”,

409 of IPC deals with “Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent”,

420 of IPC deals with “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”,

457 of IPC deals with “Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment” and

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(2) of PC Act deals with “Criminal misconduct by a public servant”.


He claimed that it was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant to browbeat the appellant because he had deposed against his father Devraj. The informant, was convicted in another case, so his statement should not have been relied on.

The complaint dated 06.09.2013 made no allegations against the appellant. The complaint was filed on September 6, 2013, for a demand of only Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, in a statement issued on September 29, 2014, the four officials, one Deputy Superintendent of Police, the appellant, and two other Head Constables, allegedly demanded Rs.24 lakhs.


They claimed that the appellant and other police officers had not only harassed and tortured Devraj while he was in custody, but also threatened and tortured family members both mentally and physically in order to extract a large sum of money. They submitted the relevant witnesses’ statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. both during the investigation and before the Trial Court.


After considering the submissions, the court concluded that it is clear that the informant, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.09.2013, narrated complete facts regarding the conduct of police officials immediately following his father’s surrender on 30.08.2013 in the case registered against him for misappropriation. The informant has consistently supported the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. from that point forward, including during the trial.

Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani, in statements recorded during the investigation on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013, respectively, provided the same information as narrated by informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Furthermore, their statements during the trial support and align with their previous statements. All of these witnesses have unequivocally described incidents that occurred at various locations, including threats, demands for large sums of money, torture of Devraj.

The Informant gave the same statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Trial Court on May 26, 2014, which was continued on September 29, 2014. There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to establish a triable case against the appellant. As a result, we are unlikely to challenge the contested order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement


In Absence Of This Relevant Material Offence Under Section 11 Of P.C. Act Can’t Be Established: High Court Of Bombay

Title: Anil Goel v Union of India & Anr.

Citation: Criminal Revision Application No.183 Of 2023

Coram: Justice Bharati Dangre

Decided On: 25th OCTOBER, 2023


F.I.R.No.RC/18(A)/2015 dated 18/12/2015 is lodged by the CBI, ACB, Cochin for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, & 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A primary charge-sheet was fled against the other accused persons named in the F.I.R. , leaving out the Applicant and even during the course of investigation from 2015 to 2019, he was never arrested. On 31/07/2019, C.B.I. fled the supplementary charge- sheet against the Applicant, accusing of committing an offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.


The allegation levelled against him is that, while functioning as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) from the period between 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2015, he occupied a flat (guesthouse) belonging to M/s Heera Constructions, without payment of any rent. t is a claim of the C.B.I. that as M/s Heera Constructions fell within the assessment jurisdiction of the Applicant, the act of staying in the flat, without payment of rent, constitutes the offence under Section 11 of the P.C. Act.

The investigation had revealed that Heera Constructions had taken the subject flat used by it as guesthouse on lease from another private person. On being taken on lease, the lease rent was paid by it. The Applicant is alleged to have stayed in the Apartment, free of cost, by abusing the offcial position, as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that rent of Rs.4,40,000/- was paid by M/s Heera Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the owner of the Apartment.

It is alleged that Heera Builders paid rent of Rs.20,000/- per month for the period from February 2014 to January 2015 (12 months) and Rs.25,000/- per month from February 2015 to September 2015 (8 months) i.e. Heera Builders paid total rent of Rs.4.4 lakhs to Mrs.Nanma Jayan for the stay of the Applicant in the flat.

The Applicant moved an application for his release on bail, post fling of the charge-sheet on the ground that, he was never arrested during investigation and the same is allowed by the Special Court for C.B.I. at Greater Bombay on 19/09/2022.

The Applicant came to Thiruvananthapuram as CCIT and his sub-ordinate i.e. the ITO showed him the flat, which he was to occupy. Apparently, he did not make any inquiries, unaware about the ownership of the flat or it’s possession. Counsel contended that if it is the allegation that he continued to reside free of cost, then why no notice was ever issued and in fact, the charge-sheet disclose that the service charge, as directed to be paid, was borne by the Applicant from January 2014 to November 2015.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

From reading Section 11 of P.C. Act it is evident that the act of a public servant, accepting or obtaining or attempting to obtain, either for himself or for any other person, any “valuable thing”, without consideration or for an inadequate consideration, from any person whom he knows to have been or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by the public servant or has any connect with his offcial position, then such an act would amount to an offence under Section 11.

But, In absence of this relevant material in the charge-sheet, which would constitute as a ground for presuming that the Applicant has committed the offence, the charge must be considered to be groundless, which is a same thing as saying that there is no ground for framing the charge.

Applicant occupied the flat, but has failed to pay the rent and this act is sufficient to make out a prima facie offence under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the P.C. Act though Accused No.2-Sarath was refused sanction and he was not charge-sheeted and, hence, the offence under Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC is not made out. In absence of establishing that the flat has been enjoyed free of cost and it has a connect with the duty to be discharged by the Applicant in relation to the assessee, merely because a assessee fall within his jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 11 are made out. Hence the order dated 13/02/2023 was set aside by the court and the Applicant is discharged from Special Case No.751 of 2022.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar

Click here to view judgement


Unmasking Corruption Allegations: Delhi High Court Clears the Cloud of Doubt in Demand vs. Recovery of Bribe Money 

Case Title: Jai Narayan v. State 

Date of Decision: September 6, 2023 

Case Number: CRL.A. 259/2007 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma 



This case involves an appeal challenging a judgment and sentencing order passed by the Special Judge in a case arising from a complaint filed with the Anti-Corruption Branch. The appellant, Jai Narayan, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly accepting a bribe. The appeal was filed under Section 374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 


Factual Background 

On August 5, 2003, the complainant, Jai Narayan Saini, filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch alleging that the appellant, a meter reader, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for issuing duplicate water bills. When the complainant refused, the appellant allegedly reduced the demand to Rs. 300, with the promise of issuing duplicate water bills in the name of the complainant’s wife. A raid was conducted by the Anti-Corruption Branch on the same day, resulting in the appellant’s arrest while accepting the alleged bribe. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, charges were framed, and the appellant pleaded not guilty, leading to the trial. 


Legal Issues 

The key legal issues in this case include:  

  1. Whether the prosecution has proven the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
  2. Whether the appellant can be convicted solely based on the recovery of the bribe money without sufficient evidence of demand?



  • The appellant contended that he had been falsely implicated, and there was no demand for a bribe.  
  • The complainant’s testimony did not support the prosecution’s case.  
  • The appellant argued that the raid witness’s testimony was insufficient to prove guilt.  
  • The appellant raised doubts about the presence of the panch witness during the raid and their reliability.  
  • It was contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the authority to convert meter connections from commercial to domestic use. 


Observation and Analysis 

The Special Judge relied on the testimony of the raiding officer and the panch witness, concluding that the appellant had accepted the bribe money. The judge also noted the appellant’s failure to explain the recovery of the money from his possession. However, the complainant did not fully support the prosecution’s case, and there were contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses. 


Decision of the Court 

The High Court observed that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential elements for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the demand beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction based on mere recovery of money was not sustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentencing order against the appellant.  


“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 


Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment


1 2