Societal Approach To Corruption Should Be ‘Absolute Intolerance’: Delhi High Court Dismisses Head Constable’s Anticipatory Bail Plea

The High Court was considering an anticipatory bail application of a Head Constable in the Delhi Police. A case was registered against him under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS).

The Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “The unrest in society caused by corruption by persons highly placed significantly generates cynicism against the system, thereby denting the efficacy of judicial system meant for creating a peaceful society. Corruption stands at no lesser footing than the conventional bodily crimes. Rather, corruption severely injures the body of the entire society. Victims of such crimes are not just the ‘Kalus’ of the society, but all of us – the entire society, therefore the societal approach to corruption should be of not just “zero tolerance”, but “absolute intolerance”.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta represented the Petitioner, while APP Amit Ahlawat represented the State.

Factual Background

It was alleged that in the year 2022-23, while being a resident of Nangloi, the de facto complainant came in contact with Head Constable Devender (the accused/applicant) and Head Constable Manoj. One day, after purchasing liquor, he was going home, and the Head Constable and the accused/applicant stopped him and demanded Rs 1,00,000, threatening to get him arrested in some complicated case. It was alleged that the deal was struck for Rs 60,000, and the same day, after taking Rs 20,000 from him, they allowed him to go by giving a direction to bring the balance amount.

Despite his having reformed himself, he was being pressurised by the accused/applicant and Head Constable to pay the balance of Rs 40,000. After completing the procedural formalities of attestation in the presence of a panch witness, a raiding team followed the accused on foot, keeping a watch over them. HC Manoj and the complainant de facto Kalu, got down from the motorcycle and started talking. The complainant de facto handed over the phenolphthalein powder coated currency notes of Rs 40,000, which the Constable took in his right hand and placed the same in right pocket of his pant. But before the raiding team could apprehend him, the Constable fled on his motorcycle with the bribe money.

Reasoning

Expounding on the law relating to bail, the Bench said, “To begin with, no doubt the legal position is that bail is rule and jail is exception. But that proposition cannot be stretched to anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail cannot be a rule. While considering grant or denial of anticipatory bail, what the court has to keep in mind is the factors to be considered while granting or denying the regular bail, plus amongst other factors, the need for custodial interrogation, recovery to be affected and the overall impact on the society at large. The court must be cautious that grant of anticipatory bail should not hamper or in any manner slow down the investigation. At this stage, the court must also be cautious that the decision should not convey to the society at large that one can commit a crime with impunity and walk away with an anticipatory bail in hand; such impression generates cynicism and distrust in the Rule of Law."

The Bench further highlighted that the shadow of corruption continues to plague parts of the police system, thereby undermining public trust.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that despite services of notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, both accused persons opted not to join the investigation and filed anticipatory bail applications, which were heard by the Court of Sessions and while granting them interim protection, the court directed the accused persons to join the investigation. But thereafter, Head Constable produced a motorcycle different from the one he was riding at the time of the alleged handing over of bribe money, and he destroyed evidence by washing the uniform. The accused/applicant failed to give any explanation regarding his phone call with the complainant de facto and switching off his mobile phone, and absence from duty. It was also noticed that the accused HC Manoj surrendered before the Special Judge, but the present accused/applicant continued to evade arrest.

“As described above, the accused/applicant is a police official, who demanded bribe after threatening the BC of the area and ensured that the bribe money was physically handed over to the co-accused so that they do not get trapped”, it said while dismissing the anticipatory bail application.

Cause Title: Devender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6138)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, Advocates Mumtaz Ahmed, Shailendra Singh, Satish Sharma

Respondent: APP Amit Ahlawat

Click here to read/download Order