The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Head Constable in the Delhi Police who was accused of demanding a bribe from a complainant for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The Court observed that the Delhi Police plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the capital of the nation by maintaining law and order in a complex and high-pressure environment. It further observed that one is not advocating for a zero scope for anticipatory bail in corruption cases, and clarified that in extremely exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied about lack of truth in the charges of corruption, the grant of anticipatory bail can be justified. However, in the present case, the Court found no such exceptional circumstance to justify the relief.
The case arose when on 15.04.2025, one Kalu, a Bad Character of PS Nihal Vihar, approached the Vigilance Officer and lodged a complaint against Head Constable Devender Kumar (the accused/applicant) and Head Constable Manoj. Kalu had come in contact with both officers in 2022-23 while being a resident of Nangloi, as they were posted in PS Nihal Vihar. He complained that on 30.03.2025, both accused officers had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from him, threatening arrest in a false case, and after taking Rs.20,000/- initially, they continued pressurizing him for the balance Rs.40,000/-. Based on this complaint, FIR was registered. A sting operation was conducted wherein 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. During the trap operation, HC Manoj received the bribe money of Rs.40,000/- but fled on his motorcycle with the bribe money towards Bhairav Enclave before apprehension. HC Manoj later surrendered but was denied bail and remains in custody. Subsequently, the accused/applicant filed the present anticipatory bail application.
The Accused/Applicant contended that at the most the offence alleged is extortion, but not under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the case suffers unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. On the contrary, the learned prosecutor contended that since the accused/applicant and HC Manoj demanded money from Kalu in their capacity as public servant and HC Manoj received the bribe money, while in uniform, it is clearly an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Accordingly, Justice Girish Kathpalia, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application, observed that corruption severely injures the body of the entire society and emphasized that victims of such crimes are not just the ‘Kalus’ of the society, but all of us, the entire society, and therefore the societal approach to corruption should be of not just “zero tolerance”, but “absolute intolerance”. The Court also noted that both accused persons ‘became not traceable’ and continued to evade arrest despite notices, with their mobile phones switched off, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify relief.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mumtaz Ahmed, Mr. Shailendra Singh and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.