"Grant of Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be a Rule": Delhi High Court Rejects Police Constable's Plea, Declares Corruption Warrants "Absolute Intolerance" and Custodial Scrutiny
- Post By 24law
- July 29, 2025

Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia denied anticipatory bail to a police officer accused of demanding a bribe, issuing a directive on July 28, 2025. The court declined the relief sought by the applicant, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Justice Kathpalia dismissed the application, stating the court was not satisfied that this was a fit case for anticipatory bail.
The court recorded that in cases of corruption by public officials, especially those involving law enforcement personnel, granting anticipatory bail on routine parameters is not appropriate. It stated that judicial decisions must not convey to the public that "one can commit a crime with impunity and walk away with an anticipatory bail in hand." The directive aligns with Supreme Court precedents, particularly in stating that anticipatory bail in corruption cases must be reserved for "extreme, exceptional cases" where the court finds that allegations are either politically motivated or frivolous.
In light of the material placed before the court, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the accused was directed to face investigation and legal process without interim protection.
The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2025, registered at Police Station Vigilance under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
According to the prosecution, on April 15, 2025, one Kalu, identified as a "Bad Character" (BC) of PS Nihal Vihar, appeared before the Vigilance Officer and submitted a complaint alleging misconduct by the petitioner and another Head Constable, Manoj. The complainant claimed that he had known both officers since 2022–23 during his residence in Nangloi, and alleged that on March 30, 2025, at around 7:00 p.m., he was stopped by them after purchasing liquor. He claimed they demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 under threat of implicating him in a criminal case. He further alleged that he was taken to a room on the third floor of PS Paschim Vihar, where both officers were then posted, and a deal was struck for Rs. 60,000. He was allowed to go after paying Rs. 20,000 with instructions to return with the balance.
The complaint also stated that despite his alleged reformation, the complainant continued to receive pressure from the petitioner and co-accused HC Manoj for the remaining amount, prompting him to approach the Vigilance Department.
Following standard procedure, the Vigilance team initiated a trap operation. Eighty Rs. 500 currency notes were attested in the presence of a panch witness, Rajnikant Ranjan of NDMC. The notes were coated with phenolphthalein powder and handed to the complainant with instructions to deliver them to the petitioner or his associate. A recording device was also provided.
The complainant informed the raiding team that the petitioner had asked him to come near the park adjacent to PS Paschim Vihar. The raiding team reached Radisson Blu Hotel, Paschim Vihar, at 4:45 p.m. and later proceeded to the designated spot. The complainant then informed the team that he had received a WhatsApp call from the petitioner, instructing him to hand over the money to HC Manoj, who would collect it on the road near the police station.
At approximately 6:00 p.m., HC Manoj arrived in uniform on a motorcycle, engaged in a conversation with the complainant, and then took him pillion. They traveled 50 meters before stopping. There, the complainant allegedly handed over Rs. 40,000 in coated currency notes to HC Manoj, who placed them in the right pocket of his pants. Before the raiding team could apprehend him, Manoj fled on his motorcycle, which bore no visible number plate. Efforts to trace him proved futile, and his mobile phone was found switched off.
During arguments, the petitioner contended through senior counsel that the alleged incident amounted to extortion rather than an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He also argued that the delay between the alleged demand (March 30) and the complaint (April 15) was unexplained. The defense stated that since the petitioner had joined the investigation whenever summoned and nothing remained to be recovered from him, anticipatory bail should be granted.
In rebuttal, the State opposed the application, citing non-cooperation by the petitioner who had evaded investigation despite three notices. The prosecution also noted that non-bailable warrants had to be obtained and that co-accused HC Manoj had surrendered but was yet to be granted bail.
The status report submitted by the State detailed the chronology of events, including WhatsApp and telephonic communication logs between the complainant, petitioner, and HC Manoj. The prosecution produced call detail records (CDRs) showing specific timestamps corroborating the complainant's version. It also referenced CCTV footage from outside the police station, and a statement by the complainant’s brother corroborating a WhatsApp call from the petitioner regarding the initial Rs. 20,000 payments.
Further, the prosecution submitted that both accused had absented from duty and avoided arrest, even evading police searches at their native homes. The petitioner had failed to provide any explanation for switching off his mobile phone and not reporting for duty. It was also noted that during interim protection, co-accused Manoj attempted to mislead investigators by producing a different motorcycle and destroying potential evidence by washing his uniform.
In these circumstances, the court was called upon to evaluate whether anticipatory bail was justified, given the nature of allegations and material presented.
The court began by acknowledging that while "bail is rule and jail is exception," this principle cannot be "stretched to anticipatory bail."
"Grant of anticipatory bail cannot be a rule," the court stated, adding that such relief must be weighed against the need for custodial interrogation, recovery of evidence, and the impact on society.
Quoting the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, the court observed "Anticipatory bail is the rule... only in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."
The court also referred to Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, and recorded "Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely roped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous."
In light of these decisions, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the complaint suffered from delay. It noted: "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... It would require gathering courage in such situation to even lodge a complaint."
On the issue of classification of offense, the court stated: "The accused/applicant is a police official, who allegedly threatened the complainant de facto... with implication in false case... Further detailed analysis... would be tantamount to overstepping the jurisdiction of the trial court."
Regarding recovery of evidence, the court observed:"The bribe amount and mobile phone of the accused/applicant are yet to be recovered."
The court took note of the supporting materials, including WhatsApp call records, CDRs, and CCTV footage, stating: "The CCTV footage outside PS Paschim Vihar West also corroborates the sequence of events described above."
The judgment stated the broader implications of police corruption, stating: "Victims of such crimes are not just the 'Kalus' of the society, but all of us – the entire society... the societal approach to corruption should be of not just 'zero tolerance', but 'absolute intolerance'."
It further added: "The court also must keep in mind that the offenders, being well experienced and in position of dominance over the victim... the court must be able to read between the lines while appreciating the material."
The court concluded its reasoning by noting: "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 co-accused so that they do not get trapped."
In its final judgement, the Delhi High Court issued the following directive: "In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed."
The court did not grant interim protection or any alternative relief. It confirmed that the application failed to meet the standards set by legal precedent for the grant of anticipatory bail in corruption cases. No directions were issued beyond the outright dismissal of the petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mumtaz Ahmed, Mr. Shailendra Singh, and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Case Title: Devender Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6138
Case Number: Bail Application 2488/2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia