The Supreme Court of India recently granted bail to a former government official from Bihar accused in a corruption case, raising serious doubts over an unusual claim that key evidence—seized currency notes—had been destroyed by rats in a police malkhana.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan suspended the four-year sentence of Aruna Kumari, a former Child Development Programme Officer (CDPO), and ordered her release on bail. The Court noted that the primary evidence against her had been lost.

Expressing disbelief, the Bench remarked that it was “taken by surprise” by the claim that rodents had destroyed the currency notes. It also flagged the broader implications, observing that such incidents could lead to significant revenue losses for the State of Bihar if seized cash is not properly preserved.

The case dates back to 2019, when Bihar’s Economic Offences Unit conducted a trap operation alleging that Kumari demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹10,000. The money was reportedly recovered, sealed, and deposited in the malkhana as crucial evidence.

However, during the trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution was unable to produce the cash in court. While the malkhana register confirmed that the envelope containing the money had been deposited, officials claimed that rodents had infested the storage area and destroyed both the envelope and the notes.

The trial court initially acquitted Kumari, but the Patna High Court overturned this decision in February 2025, holding her guilty. The High Court acknowledged the poor condition of the malkhana but maintained that the absence of physical evidence did not weaken the prosecution’s case. It reasoned that, much like a murder conviction can stand without recovery of a body, a corruption conviction could also rely on circumstantial evidence even if the bribe money was unavailable.

Kumari then approached the Supreme Court, which appeared unconvinced by the prosecution’s explanation. While granting bail, the Court observed that the claim of destruction of evidence by rodents “does not inspire confidence” and indicated that it would examine the issue in greater detail at a later stage.