The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to former Haryana Police Sub-Inspector Veer Sain, who is facing allegations of demanding illegal gratification while investigating a criminal case. The Court held that corruption allegations against a public servant are serious in nature and that custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair and effective investigation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 288 dated October 13, 2025, registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, Faridabad.
According to the prosecution, complainant Narender Singh, a retired Junior Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army and owner of a vehicle repair workshop, alleged that Veer Sain, then serving as a Sub-Inspector, was investigating an FIR lodged on his complaint in March 2022. During the investigation, the officer allegedly visited his workshop on April 6, 2022, demanded illegal gratification, accepted ₹10,000, and later sought an additional ₹20,000 while allegedly threatening to implicate him in a false criminal case if the matter was disclosed. The complainant also claimed that CCTV cameras at his office captured the visit.
The petitioner, however, argued that the FIR was lodged more than three years after the alleged incident, making the complaint doubtful. He also relied on an earlier departmental inquiry report that had reportedly not found sufficient material to establish the bribery allegation and contended that he had already faced departmental proceedings.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Sumeet Goel noted that allegations against a police officer entrusted with the investigation of a criminal case carry significant public importance because they involve the exercise of official authority.
The Court observed,
"Corruption by a public servant is not merely an offence against an individual but constitutes an offence against the society at large, eroding public confidence in the administration."
Rejecting the petitioner's argument that there was no direct proof of demand or acceptance, the Court clarified that such issues relate to appreciation of evidence and are matters for trial. At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court only has to examine whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offence and whether custodial interrogation is required for investigation.
The bench also observed that the investigating agency had specifically stated that custodial interrogation was necessary to verify the allegations and trace the alleged money trail.
Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and State v. Anil Sharma, the High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in corruption cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that custodial interrogation can be crucial for uncovering material relevant to the investigation.
Court's Decision
After considering the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the prosecution's request for custodial interrogation, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for pre-arrest protection.
The Court held that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation and observed that the petitioner's claim of false implication involved disputed questions of fact that could only be examined during the investigation or trial.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition while clarifying that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and would not influence the merits of the investigation or the trial.
Case Details:
Case Title: Veer Sain v. State of Haryana
Case Number: CRM-M-33910-2026
Judge: Justice Sumeet Goel
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
