The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Senior Section Engineer of the Railways, Arun Kumar Jindal, in a corruption case involving large-scale bribery. The case came to light after the CBI conducted trap proceedings against a co-accused in the same bribery network.
Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the argument raised by the petitioner that no prior approval was taken under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Court clarified that such sanction is not required in trap cases where further information emerges about other involved officials during the investigation.
Read also:- Sanction Not Needed Under S.197 CrPC For Insulting SC Member Or Forging Records: Kerala High Court
“When, during a trap proceeding, further information is received about the offence/offenders, the CBI cannot be rendered helpless in proceeding with further investigations,”
— Justice Shalinder Kaur, Delhi High Court
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBI vs. Santosh Karnani (2023), where it was held that the proviso to Section 17A PC Act does not apply to trap cases involving undue advantage or its attempt. Seeking prior sanction in such cases would defeat the very objective of the investigation.
In the current matter, Jindal was not initially caught during the trap but was later found to be a major player in collecting bribes from railway contractors. These bribes were reportedly taken in exchange for clearing tenders and payments. A CBI raid on his premises led to the recovery of ₹7.85 lakh in cash and gold worth over ₹43 lakh.
The petitioner claimed he was never summoned to join the investigation and thus argued his presence was not necessary. He also insisted that in the absence of prior sanction under Section 17A, the probe was invalid.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Passport Renewal Despite Interpol Red Corner Notice
However, the Special Public Prosecutor presented several facts showing the petitioner’s involvement and attempts to obstruct the investigation. He pointed out that Jindal accessed his bank locker the very next day of the raid and instructed his brother to interfere with the CBI team.
“The manner in which the petitioner evaded participation in the investigation… and operated his bank locker the very next day, shows the petitioner’s mala fides,”
— Delhi High Court
The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation of Jindal was crucial to uncover the wider conspiracy and the roles of other officials in corruption linked to tenders and contracts in the Railways.
The Court took note of the petitioner’s deliberate actions to block the investigation and hide evidence. It underlined that once the petitioner became aware of the raid at his premises, it was his responsibility not to tamper with potential evidence, especially his bank locker.
“More so, when it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that a raid was conducted at his premises, it was imperative upon him not to operate the bank locker.”
— Delhi High Court Observation
Judgment By: Justice Shalinder Kaur, Delhi High Court
Case Title: Arun Kumar Jindal v. CBI
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1705/2025
