The Supreme Court of India on 23 July granted bail to Ravinder Mehta, a Uttar Pradesh government official accused in a bribery case, holding that inordinate delay in granting prosecution sanction cannot be weaponised to keep a citizen behind bars. The ruling sets aside an earlier order by the Allahabad High Court that had refused bail to Mehta, who was posted as Assistant Inspector General of Registration-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Stamp in Shamli district.

Background of the Case

An FIR was registered against Mehta under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Adarsh Mandi police station in Shamli. According to the prosecution, the vigilance department laid a trap following a complaint that alleged a demand of ₹1 lakh as illegal gratification. During the trap, the accused's clerk was allegedly caught accepting the bribe amount. The charge sheet was filed on 7 February 2026 after completion of investigation.

Why the Supreme Court Intervened

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu noted that despite the charge sheet being filed, the competent authority had still not granted sanction for prosecution — preventing the trial court from taking cognisance of the offence. When the Bench asked counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government whether sanction had been granted, 'no clear answer' was furnished, the order recorded.

'We are surprised that the sanctioning authority is yet to activate itself,' the Justice Datta-led Bench remarked, signalling the court's concern over institutional inaction. Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mehta, argued that the prolonged delay in sanction entitled his client to bail pending trial.

What the Court Ruled

Accepting that argument, the Supreme Court observed: 'The delay in grant of sanction to prosecute cannot be used to the disadvantage of a citizen for curtailing his liberty.' The Bench held that Mehta's continued detention was unnecessary and ordered his release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The court imposed conditions requiring Mehta to not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and to diligently attend trial proceedings. Any breach — including unexcused absence from trial — would entitle the trial court to cancel the bail. The Bench also clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and must not be read as findings on the merits of the case.

What the High Court Had Said

The Allahabad High Court, in a single-judge order by Justice Samit Gopal, had earlier rejected Mehta's bail application. The High Court noted that the complainant's matter regarding deficiency of stamp duty was pending before Mehta at the time of the alleged offence, and that two independent witnesses nominated by the District Magistrate had been part of the trap team. 'The amount as paid is a huge amount... No ground for bail is made out,' Justice Gopal had said.

Broader Significance

This ruling reinforces a growing line of Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that procedural delays by the state — particularly in securing mandatory sanctions — cannot translate into indefinite pre-trial detention for the accused. Notably, the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior sanction from a competent authority before a court can take cognisance of an offence by a public servant, a safeguard designed to prevent frivolous prosecution. When that safeguard itself becomes a tool of prolonged incarceration through inaction, courts have increasingly stepped in. The Uttar Pradesh government's inability to provide a clear answer on sanction status is likely to draw scrutiny.