SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.
 
Devender Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2488 of 2025
Decided On : 28-07-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mumtaz Ahmed, Mr. Shailendra Singh and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.

Anticipatory bail must be approached with caution in corruption cases, particularly when involving public servants, as it can undermine public trust in justice.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7 - Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS) - Anticipatory bail denied to police officer accused of demanding bribe from complainant under threat of false implication. Court emphasized that granting bail in corruption cases should not set a precedent of leniency, as it may undermine public confidence in justice. The applicant's involvement, as a police officer, indicates significant culpability. (Paras 3, 8, and 15)

(B) Bail - Anticipatory bail is not a rule; its grant requires exceptional circumstances. Established that the facts of the case, including the involvement of public servants and the nature of the allegations, demand stringent scrutiny. (Paras 4, 5, and 6)

Facts of the case:
The accused, a Head Constable, allegedly demanded bribes totaling Rs.60,000 from a complainant under threat of arrest. Despite complaints, the accused failed to cooperate with investigations and evaded arrest, prompting legal action. (Paras 1 and 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the nature of the allegations, the accused’s position, and the evidence presented raised serious concerns about implicating the accused in corrupt practices, justifying the denial of anticipatory bail. The court ruled that anticipatory bail is not applicable under the presented circumstances. (Paras 10, 14, and 15)

Issues: Whether the accused has demonstrated grounds for anticipatory bail; the significance of the accused's role as a police officer in corruption charges; and the implications of granting bail on public trust in law enforcement. (Paras 8 and 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted cautiously. The involvement of a police officer in corruption and the manner of involvement indicate a severe breach of public trust that necessitates denying anticipatory bail application. (Paras 6 and 8)

Result: Anticipatory bail application dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole’s famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned:“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long.” In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day-to-day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations.”

{ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 }

1. The accused/applicant, posted as Head Constable in Delhi Police, seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.04/2025 of PS Vigilance for offence under Section, 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and 61(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS). Reply/status report was filed on behalf of respondent, strongly opposing the anticipatory bail application. I heard learned senior counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State, who took me through record.

2. According to prosecution case, on 15.04.2025 at about 11:00 am, one Kalu, a Bad Character (BC) of PS Nihal Vihar appeared before the Vigilance Officer of the Delhi Police, and complained as follows.

2.1 In the year 2022-23, while being resident of Nangloi, he came in contact with Head Constable Devender (the accused/applicant) and Head Constable Manoj, as they were posted in PS Nihal Vihar. On 30.03.2025 at about 07:00pm, when after purchasing liquor he was going home, HC Manoj and the accused/applicant stopped him and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-, threatening to get him arrested in some complicated case; and they took him to a room on third floor of PS Paschim Vihar, Miyanwala, where both of them were posted. Ultimately the deal was struck for Rs.60,000/- and at about 11:00pm same day, after taking Rs.20,000/- from him, they allowed him to go with the direction to bring the balance Rs.40,000/-. Despite his having reformed himself, he was being pressurized by the accused/applicant and HC Manoj to pay the balance Rs.40,000/-, therefore, action be taken against them.

2.2 After completing procedural formalities of attestation in presence of panch witness Mr. Rajnikant Ranjan of NDMC, 80 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were handed over by the complainant de facto Kalu to the Inspector, who recorded the serial numbers of currency notes and conducted the necessary precursor for raid by coating the notes with phenolphthalein powder and handed over the same to Kalu, who kept the same in right pocket of his pant.

2.3 Kalu was instructed to keep the panch witness with him so that the latter could clearly listen to the handing over and taking over of the bribe amount. The panch witness also was issued necessary instructions including signaling the police team on being satisfied about the demand and delivery of bribe. A recording device in the shape of pen drive also was handed over to Kalu with the directions to keep the same switched on at the time of conversation. At about 04:45pm, Inspector Paramjeet Singh and the staff accompanying him gathered at Radisson Blue Hotel, Paschim Vihar, where the Inspector briefed his team. Kalu informed the raiding team that the accused/applicant had called him in the park near PS Paschim Vihar Miyanwala. Accordingly, Kalu was sent to the spot and the raiding team took their position.

2.4 After sometime, Kalu informed that the accused/applicant had telephonically told him over WhatsApp call that HC Manoj was being sent on road in front of the police station to collect the money. The Inspector told the panch witness to stay near Kalu to observe the entire incident and the moment HC Manoj receives the bribe money, Kalu wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top