punjab and haryana high court

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking anticipatory bail for offences under Sections under Sections 7, 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 381, 120 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. dismissed the same saying that the instant case warrants for custodial interrogation.


IAS Vijay Singh Dahiya allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 5 Lakhs to clear bills of the Complainant.An amount of Rs 2 lakhs had already been submitted by the complainant. The co-accused had been caught red-handed while accepting the rest of Rs 3 lakhs and had named Vijay Singh Dahiya in her statement.

Court’s Analysis

The court was of the view that the petitioner’s contentions did not appeal to reason and the evidence on record pointed towards his involvement in the crime.

The Court considered the facts in the instant matter which lent credibility to prosecution version, the duly established acquaintance of petitioner with the co-accused who was caught red-handed, WhatsApp chat regarding clearing of Bills, and observed that all this left no room for any doubt regarding the role of the petitioner.

It further pointed out that the Complainant’s files were stuck for the past three years which started moving very quickly after the deal was struck between IAS Vijay Singh Dahiya and the co-accused.

The Court said that the instant case requires custodial interrogation for unearthing finer details of modus-operandi and details of other identical instances of clearance of bills. In addition, some more people had come forward levelling the allegations of bribe on Vijay Singh Dahiya. One of the other co-accused even anticipated danger to himself from the petitioner according to his case recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail saying that the instant case lacked any merit.

[Vijay Singh Dahiya v. State of Haryana (Anti-Corruption Bureau), 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 578, Judgment dated 02-06-2023]

Judgment by: Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, Advocate Arnav Ghai, Advocate Vipin Yadav;

For the Respondent: Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Deepak Sabharwal.

Buy Penal Code, 1860  HERE

Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  HERE

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.