DEVINDER KUMAR BANSALversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

          [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1531 : 2025 INSC 320

                   Devinder Kumar Bansal
                             v.
                    The State of Punjab
                  (SLP (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025)
                          03 March 2025
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court justified in denying anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR registered against the
petitioner for the offence punishable u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and
s.61(2) of the BNS 2023.

                             Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 – s.61(2) – Illegal gratification – Anticipatory bail – Denial –
Petitioner-Audit Inspector with the Government demanded
illegal gratification in connection with conducting of audit
during the tenure of complainant’s wife as Sarpanch of Gram
Panchayat – Co-accused actually collected the bribe amount
for and on behalf of the petitioner from the complainant – FIR
registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable
u/s.7 of the 1988 Act and s.61(2) of the BNS 2023 – Application
for anticipatory bail by the petitioner – High Court denied the
bail – Correctness:
Held: High Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner –
Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like
corruption are required to be satisfied – Anticipatory bail can be
granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is
prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped
in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are
frivolous – In the instant case, it cannot be said that any exceptional
circumstances have been made out by the petitioner for grant
of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution –
Presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration
for grant of anticipatory bail – Presumption of innocence is one
of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while
considering the plea for anticipatory bail – 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
1532                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    the cause of public justice – If liberty is to be denied to an accused
    to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate
    in denying such liberty – Where overwhelming considerations in
    the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to
    be denied. [Paras 21, 23, 24, 32]

                             Case Law Cited
    State of M.P. and Another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and Another
    [1995] 1 SCR 897 : AIR 1995 SC 1198; Siddharam Satlingappa
    Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010] 15 SCR 201 : AIR 2011
    SC 312; Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy
    [2013] 8 SCR 830 : (2013) 7 Scale 15; Manoj Narula v. Union of
    India [2014] 9 SCR 965 : (2014) 9 SCC 1; Niranjan Hemchandra
    Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 4 SCR 767 : (2013) 4 SCC
    642; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [2012] 3 SCR 52 :
    (2012) 3 SCC 64; K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh [2001] Supp.
    1 SCR 224 : (2001) 6 SCC 584; Subramanian Swamy v. Director,
    Central Bureau of Investigation [2014] 6 SCR 873 : (2014) 8 SCC
    682; Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2017] 8 SCR
    498 : (2017) 8 SCC 757 – referred to.
    Ratan Moni Dey v. Emperor (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calcutta 292; Damodar
    Krishna Kamli v. State, 1955 Cr.L.J. 181 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
    Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

                             List of Keywords
    Illegal gratification; Anticipatory bail; Audit Inspector with the
    Government; Conducting of audit; Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat;
    Bribe amount; Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail; Corruption;
    Frivolity; Presumption of innocence; Public justice; Over solicitous
    homage.

                            Case Arising From
    EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for
    Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2025 of the High Court
    of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 6003 of 2025
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       1533

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Ms. Sanya Kaushal, Ms. Disha Singh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

1.   Exemption Applications are allowed.
2.   The High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in
     connection with First Information Report No. l dated 08.01.2025
     registered with the Vigilance Bureau, Police Station, Patiala for the
     offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
     Act, 1988 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3.   It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner – herein
     is serving as Audit Inspector with the Government.
4.   He is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification in connection
     with conducting of audit pertaining to development work undertaken
     during the tenure of the wife of the complainant as Sarpanch of the
     Gram Panchayat. It is further alleged that the co-accused by name
     Prithvi Singh actually collected the bribe amount for and on behalf
     of the petitioner – herein for the complainant.
5.   Apprehending his arrest in connection with the offence, referred
     to above, the petitioner prayed for anticipatory bail which the High
     Court declined.
6.   In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner is here before
     us with the present petition.
7.   We heard Ms. Sanya Kaushal, the learned counsel appearing for
     the petitioner and also looked into the materials on record. The
     learned counsel made a gallant effort to persuade us to exercise our
     discretion in favour of the petitioner, however, we had to convey to
     her with all humility at our command that she has come before us
     with a very weak matter.
8.   The High Court in its impugned order, more particularly Para 5 has
     observed thus:-
1534                                                      [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          “On being put to notice on the previous date of hearing,
          learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the
          complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant
          of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that
          co-accused Prithvi Singh was apprehended red handed
          while accepting the bribe and admitted that the amount
          was received on behalf of the petitioner. Furthermore, there
          was an audio recording dated 08.01.2025, which further
          corroborates the demand made by the petitioner. It has
          been argued that in the said recording, the petitioner is
          clearly audible confirming with co-accused Prithvi Singh
          whether the bribe was received in cash and further
          instructing him to transfer the amount to a third party,
          namely Naresh.”
9.   Section 7 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:
          “7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
          remuneration in respect of an official act
          Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant,
          accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain
          from any person, for himself or for any other person, any
          gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a
          motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
          act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise
          of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person
          or for rendering or attempting to render any service or
          disservice to any person with the Central Government or
          any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature
          of any State or with any local authority, corporation or
          Government company referred to in clause (c) of section
          2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise,
          shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not
          less than six months but which may extend to five years
          and shall also be liable to fine.
          Explanations. (a) “Expecting to be a public servant.” If a
          person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification
          by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in
          office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1535

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


           of cheating but he is not guilty of the offence defined in
           this section.
           (b) “Gratification”. The word “gratification” is not restricted
           to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in
           money.
           (c) “Legal remuneration”. The words “legal remuneration”
           are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant
           can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which
           he is permitted by the Government or the organisation,
           which he serves, to accept.
           (d) “A motive or reward for doing.” A person who receives
           a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he
           does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not
           done, comes within this expression.
           (e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to
           believe that his influence with the Government has obtained
           a title for that person and thus induces that person to give
           the public servant, money or any other gratification as a
           reward for this service, the public servant has committed
           an offence under this section.”
10. Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, 1988 reads as under:
           “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant
           (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
           misconduct,
           (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept
           or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any
           other person any gratification other than legal remuneration
           as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or”
11. Thus, in an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, the points
    requiring proof are:
           (i) that, the accused at the time of the offence was, or
           expected to be, a public servant;
           (ii) that, he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or
           attempted to obtain from some person a gratification;
1536                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          (iii) that, such gratification was not a legal remuneration
          due to him;
          (iv) that, he accepted such gratification as a motive or
          reward, proof of which is essential for
                (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or
                (b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour
                to someone in exercise of his official functions, or
                (c) rendering or attempting to render any service,
                or disservice to someone, with the legislative or
                executive government, or with any public servant.
12. Further it is seen that, Section 7 speaks of the “attempt” to obtain
    a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation,
    therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence
    under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word “attempt” is to imply no more
    than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually
    in implicit or in explicit terms.
13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be
    prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do
    not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those
    who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are
    likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections
    10 and 11 of the Act 1988 respectively.
14. We may refer to a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court
    in the case of Ratan Moni Dey vs. Emperor reported in (1905) I.L.R.
    32 Calcutta 292. The entire order is extracted hereunder:
          “The petitioner has been convicted of attempting to obtain
          for himself some gratification other than legal remuneration
          as a motive or reward for doing an official act, and has
          been sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment.
          A Rule was issued by this Court to show cause why the
          conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner should
          not be set aside on the ground that the facts found in the
          judgment do not constitute an attempt to commit an offence
          under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and also to
          show cause why the sentence should not be modified.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              1537

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


           The petitioner was a Civil Court peon and as such he had
           to serve summonses on the witnesses in a suit instituted by
           the firm in which the complainant was the head gomastha.
           He asked the complainant to pay him dusturi, if he wished
           him to serve the summonses without an identifier, and this
           is the act for doing which he has been convicted.
           It is urged on his behalf that the facts found do not constitute
           an attempt to obtain the dusturi. With this argument we
           are unable to agree. It appears to us that the attempt
           was complete when the demand was made; there was
           nothing further for the petitioner to do to complete his
           attempt. He made the request, and it lay with the person
           from whom he demanded the money to comply with the
           request or not. We are in complete agreement with the
           opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Pearson in Empress
           of India v. Baldeo Sahai [(1879) I.L.R. 2 All 253] where
           that learned Judge lays down that to ask for a bribe is an
           attempt to obtain one.
           The learned pleader who appeared on behalf of the
           petitioner quoted several cases to show what is an attempt
           what is not. We need not refer to these in detail. We may
           take the case of the woman who was convicted of having
           attempted to commit suicide, reported in Queen Empress v.
           Ramakha [(1884) I.L.R. 8 Mad. 5]. In this case the woman
           had run towards a well with the intention of jumping down
           it. Here it was held that there was no attempt to commit
           suicide, and the reason is obvious. The mere running
           would not put an end to her life; there was some further
           act to be done, namely, jumping down the well, before the
           attempt would be complete.
           In the case before us, there was nothing further for the
           petitioner to do; he made the request and, as we have
           said, whether he received the gratification or not did not
           depend on himself but on the person from whom it was
           demanded.
           As regards the sentence, we are of opinion that in the
           circumstances of the case it is not too severe. The
           petitioner not only demanded the reward but refused to
1538                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          serve the summons if it were not paid, and also used
          abusive language towards the complainant.
          We accordingly see no reason to interfere. The Rule is
          discharged.
          The petitioner must be called on to surrender and to serve
          the remainder of the sentence.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

15. We may also refer to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High
    Court in the case Damodar Krishna Kamli vs. State reported in 1955
    Cr.L.J. 181. Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar (as His Lordship then was),
    speaking for the Bench, observed as under:
          “...If we turn to Section 161, it would be clear that a public
          servant would be guilty of the offence of taking gratification
          under the said section even if he agrees to accept the
          prohibited gratification. It is thus not necessary in order to
          bring home to the public servant the charge under Section
          161 to prove that he has actually accepted or obtained
          illegal gratification. It would be enough if it be shown that
          he had agreed to accept the said illegal gratification. In
          other words, if a proposal is made to the public servant in
          respect of payment of illegal gratification and the proposal
          is accepted by the public servant, he would be guilty under
          Section 161, Penal Code...”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

16. Section 161 of the I.P.C. came to be omitted at the time when the
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 came to be repealed and the
    Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 came into force. Section 161
    of the I.P.C. is pari materia to Section 7 of the Act, 1988.
17. Section 7 is with regard to a public servant taking gratification other
    than the legal remuneration in respect of an official act. On the
    other hand, Section 13 of the Act, 1988 is with regard to criminal
    misconduct by a public servant. A public servant could be said to
    have committed an offence of criminal misconduct, if he habitually
    accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from
    any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             1539

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


     than the legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as mentioned
     in Section 7 of the Act.
18. In State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another
    reported in AIR 1995 SC 1198, this Court considered the nature of
    the right of anticipatory bail and observed as under:
           “We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section
           438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of
           Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar
           to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code? Also
           anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is
           essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming
           into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as
           an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution.
           And its nonapplication to a certain special category of
           offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21.”
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)

19. While deciding the aforesaid case, this Court referred to the 41st
    Report of the Indian Law Commission dated 24th September, 1969
    recommending the introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory
    bail wherein it has been observed that “power to grant anticipatory
    bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases”.
20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused vehemently
    advanced the argument on the subject of life and liberty enshrined
    in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by placing strong reliance
    on the observations made by this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
    Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC 312 and
    submitted that unless the custodial interrogation is warranted in the
    facts and circumstances of the case, declining to grant anticipatory
    bail amounts to denial of the rights conferred upon a citizen/person
    under Article 21 of the Constitution. We do not find any merit in this
    contention of the learned counsel.
21. The parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence like
    corruption are required to be satisfied. Anticipatory bail can be granted
    only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of
    the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or
    the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. So far as the
    case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional
1540                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for
     grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution.
22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central
    Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7
    Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus:
          “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
          nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support
          thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
          will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
          which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
          of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
          reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
          with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar
          considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
          purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words
          “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence”
          which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can
          only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
          the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
          prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not
          expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing
          the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole
    consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of
    innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should
    keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. 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.
24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free
    society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty.
    Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require
    denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a
    different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-
    sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public
    servant - accused of indulging in corruption.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           1541

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


25. 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.
26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude
    of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the
    truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by
    highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country.
    If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the
    progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the
    society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even
    the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is
    from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government
    and of the political parties.
27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held
    that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and
    quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v.
    State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:—
           “16……‘26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction
           that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption
           mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress,
           accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience,
           jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the
           economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility
           and mars the marrows of governance.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this
    Court held as under:—
1542                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         “68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a
         grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance,
         it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy
         and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our
         public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist,
         secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that
         where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues
         human rights, chokes development and undermines justice,
         liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our
         preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that
         any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked
         out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against
         corruption….”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

29. In K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court
    observed thus:—
         “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a
         monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started
         grappling even the institutions created for the protection
         of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and
         impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning
         of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive
         as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants
         could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions
         and thereby hinder the democratic polity….”
                                                (Emphasis supplied)

30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Director,
    Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, rendered by
    another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula’s case, a Constitution
    Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as
    under:—
         “17 Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC
         682, the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha,
         C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police
         Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                               1543

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


           of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that : (SCC pp.
           725-26, para 59)
           “59. It seems to us that classification which is made in
           Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service
           is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose
           of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which
           amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there
           be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants
           based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective
           of their status or position, corrupt public servants are
           corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants,
           whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and
           must be confronted with the process of investigation and
           inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service,
           no distinction can be made between public servants against
           whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under
           the PC Act, 1988.”
           And thereafter, the larger Bench further said : (SCC p.
           726, para 60)
           “60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking
           down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons
           is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult
           to justify the classification which has been made in Section
           6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988 is to meet
           corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public
           servants are warned through such a legislative measure
           that corrupt public servants have to face very serious
           consequences.”
           And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72)
           “71. Office of public power cannot be the workshop
           of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great
           importance. How can two public servants against whom
           there are allegations of corruption of graft or bribe-taking
           or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be
           made to be treated differently because one happens to
           be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker.
1544                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down
         corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and
         punishing such person is a necessary mandate under
         the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant
         does not qualify such public servant from exemption from
         equal treatment. The decision-making power does not
         segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are
         common crime-doers and have to be tracked down by the
         same process of inquiry and investigation.”
         18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday
         that corruption has the potentiality to destroy many a
         progressive aspect and it has acted as the formidable
         enemy of the nation.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

31. In Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 8 SCC
    757, this Court observed thus:
         “59. Every country feels a constant longing for good
         governance, righteous use of power and transparency in
         administration. Corruption is no longer a moral issue as it
         is linked with the search of wholesome governance and the
         society’s need for re-assurance that the system functions
         fairly, free from corruption and nepotism. Corruption has
         spread its tentacles almost on all the key areas of the State
         and it is an impediment to the growth of investment and
         development of the country. If the conduct of administrative
         authorities is righteous and duties are performed in good
         faith with the vigilance and awareness that they are public
         trustees of people’s rights, the issue of lack of accountability
         would themselves fade into insignificance.
         60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may refer to
         the oft-quoted words of Kautilya, which reads as under:—
         “Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the
         poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is
         impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at
         least, a bit of the king’s revenue. Just as fish moving under
         water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or
         not drinking water, so government servants employed in
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                              1545

             Devinder Kumar Bansal v. The State of Punjab


           the government work cannot be found out (while) taking
           money for themselves).
           It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high
           up in the sky; but not so is it possible to ascertain the
           movement of government servants of hidden purpose.”
           [Ref: Kautilya’s Arthasastra by R. Shamasastry, Second
           Edition, Page 77]
           As pointed out by Paul H. Douglas in his book on “Ethics
           of Government”, “corruption was rife in British public life till
           a hundred years ago and in USA till the beginning of this
           century. Nor can it be claimed that it has been altogether
           eliminated anywhere.”
           (Ref : Santhanam Committee Report, 1962 : Para 2.3).
           61. Tackling corruption is going to be a priority task for the
           Government. The Government has been making constant
           efforts to deal with the problem of corruption. However,
           the constant legislative reforms and strict judicial actions
           have still not been able to completely uproot the deeply
           rooted evil of corruption. This is the area where the
           Government needs to be seen taking unrelenting, stern and
           uncompromising steps. Leaders should think of introducing
           good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only
           then benefits of liberalization and various programmes,
           welfare schemes and programmes would reach the
           masses. Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the
           public has all along been found to be to the advantage of
           the corrupt. Due to the uncontrolled spread of consumerism
           and fall in moral values, corruption has taken deep roots
           in the society. What is needed is a reawakening and
           recommitment to the basic values of tradition rooted in
           ancient and external wisdom. Unless people rise against
           bribery and corruption, society can never be rid of this
           disease. The people can collectively put off this evil by
           resisting corruption by any person, howsoever high he or
           she may be.”
32. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High
    Court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.
1546                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


33. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
34. However, it is needless to clarify that if the petitioner herein prays for
    regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits without
    being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by
    this Court as this Court has only considered whether the petitioner
    deserves to be granted anticipatory bail or not.
35. The principles governing grant of anticipatory bail are distinct and
    different from the principles as regards the grant of regular bail. The
    considerations are different. This should be kept in mind if at all a
    regular bail application is filed by the petitioner herein.
36. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Petition dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain