The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied an anticipatory bail to the constable. (AI-generated image)The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a constable allegedly involved in a corruption case, holding that even if he acted on the directions of a senior officer, it would not “dilute” the allegations against him.Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by constable Dushyant, who is accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 2.5 lakh in connection with a fake ghee case.“Even if the petitioner was acting at the behest of the senior officer, namely, Inspector Arun Kumar, the same would not in any manner dilute the allegation levelled against the petitioner,” the April 16 order read. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted that the matter traces back to an earlier investigation involving a fake ghee manufacturing and supply racket.A fake ghee case to bribery caseThe matter traces back to an earlier investigation involving a fake ghee manufacturing and supply racket, and the arrest of certain accused involved in producing and distributing counterfeit products.During the investigation of that case, serious allegations emerged that police officials themselves were involved in corruption.A special investigation team (SIT) was constituted and tasked to independently investigate the conduct of police officials involved in the case.The special investigation team report revealed that certain police officials, including Inspector Arun Kumar, ASI Sandeep, and constable Dushyant, illegally detained accused persons and accepted large sums of money (bribes) through a middleman.It was alleged that Rs 14 lakhs and Rs 5 lakhs were paid to police officials to manipulate the case, and the investigation records were deliberately altered or fabricated to benefit the accused persons.It was further alleged that the actions were part of a larger criminal conspiracy involving misuse of official position.The petitioner was allegedly part of the team that demanded and accepted bribes, including around Rs 2.5 lakhs.Based on SIT findings, a fresh FIR was registered in January 2026 with charges including corruption, conspiracy, destruction of evidence, and misuse of official position.‘Constable present at place of bribery’The high court pointed out that the petitioner was a member of a police team who not only raised a demand for a bribe but also accepted the same, which cannot be brushed aside lightly, at least at this stage. The court found that the call detail records and the location chart of the phone used by the petitioner would show that on December 12, 2025, between 6 pm and 7 pm, he was present at Samalkha, the place where the bribe was paid to the police team. Also Read | ‘Imagine ordinary woman’: Calcutta High Court orders re-trial of male cop acquitted of raping colleague, says ‘collective shame’The court clarified that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required to take the investigation to the logical conclusion ‘Mere constable’Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Navmohit Singh contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Story continues below this adIt was added that teh petitioner was posted as a constable and was not the investigating officer in either of teh cases. It was submitted that the entire allegation in the FIR traces the corruption to Inspector Arun Kumar and ASI Sandeep, who controlled the investigation, prepared documents and orchestrated the financial transaction through middleman Rajesh Sharma. It was emphasised that if the investigating officer’s role is derivative and subordinate to that of Inspector Arun Kumar, the petitioner, who is a mere constable, cannot be attributed any significant role. He pointed out that the call detail records and location data show that the petitioner was present at Samlakha, which did not lead to the assumption that he had participated in the act of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Story continues below this adRepresenting the state, deputy government advocate Viney Phogat contended that the statement of Chirag Gandhi has been recorded, in which the role of the petitioner of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification has been clearly enumerated. Also Read | 30 years on, Delhi High Court cuts 80-year-old former cop’s jail time in murder caseHe added that as the office is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary. Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt LtdTags:Punjab and Haryana High Court