Victims of Corruption Are Not Just the Kalus—They Are All of Us: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Police Constable Accused of Bribe Extortion

“Society Deserves Absolute Intolerance to Corruption—Not Just Zero Tolerance”, Delivering a powerful judgment Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a Delhi Police Head Constable accused of demanding and facilitating a bribe from a history-sheeter under the Prevention of Corruption Act, reiterating that anticipatory bail in corruption cases cannot be granted routinely and must be reserved for exceptional circumstances only.

Justice Girish Kathpalia, while rejecting the bail plea of Devender Kumar in BAIL APPLN. 2488/2025, invoked both legal principle and societal conscience, stating:

“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’.”

Cautioning against conveying an impression that the system is soft on corruption, the Court emphasized: “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.”

The applicant, Devender Kumar, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, sought pre-arrest bail after being named in FIR No. 04/2025 registered by the Vigilance Unit of Delhi Police under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

According to the prosecution, the complainant—Kalu, a listed "Bad Character" (BC) at PS Nihal Vihar—alleged that on 30 March 2025, the applicant and a co-accused police constable demanded ₹1,00,000, threatening false implication. A deal was settled for ₹60,000, of which ₹20,000 was allegedly paid on the same night.

Subsequently, despite Kalu's alleged "reformation", the officers kept harassing him for the balance amount. When ₹40,000 was demanded again, a trap was laid by the Vigilance unit, leading to a bribe transaction on 15 April 2025—recorded using phenolphthalein-coated currency, audio devices, and witnessed by a panch from NDMC.

However, co-accused HC Manoj, who allegedly received the money, escaped on his motorcycle before the raiding team could apprehend him. Both officers allegedly went incommunicado, evaded summons, and failed to join investigation, leading to non-bailable warrants being issued.

Is Delay in Lodging Complaint Fatal in Corruption Cases?

The defense argued that the complaint was delayed—threats were made on 30 March, but the complaint was filed on 15 April.

Rejecting this, the Court reasoned: “It is not a case of an ordinary citizen being demanded bribe. It is a case of a BC of an area, from whom bribe is allegedly demanded, and that too by police officials of the same area. It would require gathering courage in such situation to even lodge a complaint.” [Para 10]

Is the Case One of Extortion or Corruption?

The defense attempted to argue that the alleged act was extortion, not bribery.

The Court dismissed the argument as premature: “Further detailed analysis of this argument would be tantamount to overstepping the jurisdiction of the trial court... This Court is not inclined to enter into such mini-trial at this stage.” [Para 11]

Is Anticipatory Bail Warranted Because Nothing Remains to Be Recovered?

Defense contended that there was nothing to recover, and thus custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

But the Court cited the prosecution’s status report, stating: “The bribe amount and mobile phone of the accused/applicant are yet to be recovered.” [Para 12]

Additionally, the mobile call records (CDRs), audio recordings, WhatsApp call logs, and CCTV footage allegedly corroborated the trap sequence and the applicant's involvement.

Is Anticipatory Bail Justified After NBW Issued?

Defense relied on a coordinate bench ruling in Ashish v. CBI (2022) to argue that issuance of NBWs is not a ground to deny bail.

The Court distinguished the case: “Unlike Ashish, the present case involves a public servant demanding a bribe and allegedly evading arrest. The role ascribed is far more serious.” [Para 14]

Corruption in Uniform: “Folklore More Rampant Than Reality—But Where It Exists, It Must Be Crushed”

In a scathing analysis of institutional corruption within the police force, Justice Kathpalia observed:

“The Delhi Police plays a pivotal role… numerous officers work with complete honesty… But the shadow of corruption continues to plague parts of the system, undermining public trust.” [Para 8.1]

“More rampant than corruption is the folklore of corruption… But wherever it exists, the judiciary must use all force to root it out.” [Para 8.1]

Calling corruption a “crime against the body of society”, the Court emphasized:

“Corruption stands at no lesser footing than the conventional bodily crimes. Rather, corruption severely injures the body of the entire society.” [Para 8.2]

On Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Cases: Not the Rule, But Rare Exception

Citing Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC OnLine SC 282) and Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025 SCC OnLine SC 488), the Court reminded:

“Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy... not the rule. Granting it routinely in corruption cases would not be safe.” [Para 6, 7]

“The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice.” [Para 7.23]

Refusing to extend the protection of pre-arrest bail, the Court held: “I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed.” [Para 15]

This ruling sends a firm message that public servants charged with corruption cannot expect indulgence at the pre-trial stage, particularly where evidence points to deliberate evasion, destruction of evidence, and the use of power to exploit the vulnerable.

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025