On October 8, 2024, the Delhi High Court allowed bail to Yudhveer Singh Yadav, a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, who was captured in association with a bribery case. Yadav was confronting charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after being accused of requesting and accepting a bribe of ₹2.5 lakhs to settle a legitimate matter.
The case came to light when Amit Gautam, the complainant, recorded a report charging that Yadav had inquired for a bribe in trade for recording an Action Taken Report (ATR) in his favor concerning a lawful complaint. Taking after the charges, a trap was set by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), amid which Yadav was caught tolerating the bribe sum on July 19, 2024. In this way, he was captured and his safeguard application was denied by the Rouse Avenue Court, citing the earnestness of the charges and the progressing examination.
Key Arguments for Bail
Yadav’s defense, backed by Senior Advocate Sunil Dalal, contended that the case was constructed on insufficient and ambiguous evidence. The defense argued that the Yadav and Gautam conversation was captured on a Digital Video Recorder (DVR), but the recording was inaudible and hence untrustworthy as crucial evidence.
The bribe money was allegedly found on Yadav's office table when he was being detained 100 meters away, indicating that he was not directly involved in handling the money. Yadav's attorney further stated that his client had complied with the investigation and had no past criminal history. They cited the ruling in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) from the Supreme Court, which upheld the tenet that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception,"
As Yadav faced a maximum imprisonment of seven years under the Prevention of Corruption Act, his legal team emphasized that continued detention would serve no further investigative purpose.
Court's Decision
The High Court, managed over by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, considered the truths of the case and the completion of the examination, counting the submission of the chargesheet by the CBI. The Court recognized the earnestness of the charges but repeated that gravity alone cannot be the sole premise for denying safeguard.
The Court concluded that Yudhveer Singh Yadav had made a solid case for safeguard, given the nonattendance of continuous examinations, his participation, and his clean criminal record.
Yadav was given bail with the requirements that he turn in his passport, provide a ₹1 lakh personal bond, and assist the inquiry completely. In addition, he had to abstain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, as well as make two monthly appearances before the police station.
This decision demonstrates the Court's dedication to maintaining the fundamentals of justice by making sure that incarceration is never utilized as a means of punishment prior to the conclusion of a trial.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Delhi High Court Yudhveer Singh Yadav bribery CBI Prevention of Corruption Act bail Satender Kumar Antil judgment.
