The Supreme Court has held that corruption in the “higher echelons of the government and political parties” posed a greater threat to law and order than “hired assassins” as it cautioned courts against granting anticipatory bail to public servants facing graft charges.

“If even a fraction of what was the vox populi about the magnitude of corruption is 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,” a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said in the order made public on Wednesday.

“If one is asked to name one sole factor that has 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 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,” it added.

The bench passed the judgment while dismissing a plea filed by Devinder Kumar Bansal — a Punjab government audit inspector facing graft allegations — challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order refusing to grant him bail.

The apex court noted that Bansal was not entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence furnished by the prosecution.

“The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail are distinct and different from 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,” the bench said.

“We are convinced that the high court rightly denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner,” it added.

However, the bench clarified that if the petitioner appealed for regular bail, it should be considered on its own merits as the apex court had “only considered whether the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail or not”.

Bansal is accused of soliciting illegal gratification for auditing development projects undertaken by a village panchayat. According to the prosecution, co-accused Prithvi Singh allegedly collected the bribe on Bansal’s behalf.

The high court had denied anticipatory bail to Bansal in connection with an FIR registered at the Vigilance Bureau police station in Patiala on January 8 this year under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

“Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or frivolous. So far as the case at hand is concerned, it cannot be said that any exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioner accused for grant of anticipatory bail and there is no frivolity in the prosecution,” the apex court bench said.

“If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure a 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 the grant of regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging in corruption,” the bench added.