OquiliaOquilia
Legal

MP High Court upholds acquittal of Sagar head constable Raghuveer Pandey in bribe case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused the Lokayukta's plea for leave to appeal against a head constable's acquittal in a Rs 8,000 bribe case, holding the prosecution failed to prove the demand.

Key points

  • The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 29 October 2026 dismissed the state's plea for leave to appeal against a head constable's acquittal.
  • The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged Rs 8,000 bribe demand, as the trap failed and the recording was not reliably identified.
  • The 30 November 2018 acquittal by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Sagar, therefore stands.
Oquilia Newsroom
Financial news desk covering SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and Budget-related developments.
2 min read · 369 wordsहिन्दी में पढ़ें
Verified SourcesSource: Madhya Pradesh High Court
A fountain pen resting on a printed contract

Photo: Blogtrepreneur / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0 (cropped). Representational image.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on 29 October 2026 refused the state leave to appeal against the acquittal of Raghuveer Pandey, head constable, police outpost Sehora, Rahatgarh police station, Sagar district, in a bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged demand of a Rs 8,000 bribe, so his acquittal stands.

What Happened

According to the judgment, a complaint made to the Lokayukta's Special Police Establishment in Sagar in February 2014 alleged that the head constable demanded Rs 8,000 to release a seized machine and to spare the complainant from prosecution after an accident at a well. A trap was planned, but per the judgment it failed four times and was closed. The prosecution relied instead on a recorded conversation and a forensic voice report.

The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Sagar, acquitted him of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) on 30 November 2018. The Lokayukta's Special Police Establishment then sought leave to appeal.

The High Court held that neither acceptance nor receipt of a bribe was proved, since the trap failed. It noted that the complainant did not support the prosecution and denied his own voice in the recording, that no one familiar with the voices identified them, and that a person present at every stage was not examined as a witness. It held that the forensic report only said the voice was probably the accused's and was not substantive evidence, so the prosecution failed to prove the conversation took place between the complainant and the accused. The court found the trial court's view a possible and plausible one and dismissed the application.

The court's order leaves the acquittal in place, and the presumption of innocence stands.

What It Means

In a bribery case, the prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe. The judgment shows that a recording whose voices are not reliably identified may not be enough to prove it.

If an official demands a bribe from you, you can report it to your state's anti-corruption bureau or Lokayukta; Oquilia's guide lists every state's helpline at https://www.oquilia.com/report-a-bribe.

Source: High Court judgment

Sources & Citations

  1. High Court judgment — Madhya Pradesh High Court

This article was last reviewed on 3 November 2026 by Oquilia's editorial team. Every claim is sourced from primary regulatory materials (CBDT, IRDAI, RBI, SEBI, Indian Kanoon). View our methodology.

Found an error? Report an issue.