IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No.432 of 2009. Date of decision: 15.6.2009 Rajinder Chauhan ..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 4 of 2009 registered at Police Station, AC Zone, Nahan under Section 7, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 201, 506 IPC. Status report filed, heard and perused the record. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the complaint of Krishan Dutt the case was registered. The further prosecution case is that in January, 2009 Krishan Dutt had applied for loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from H.P.State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Rajgarh. The petitioner was posted as 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 Manager, Rajgarh Branch of the bank at that time. The petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/- in lieu of grant of loan to the complainant and also demanded that a girl be supplied to him. The complainant deposited Rs.1105/- scrutiny charges with the bank. The petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.60,000/- out of which the complainant had deposited Rs.5000/- as his share money with the bank. The petitioner did not release Rs.40,000/- second instalment of the loan. He demanded money and also asked the complainant to send his wife / sister. The complainant came in contact with Rajesh Kamal a Journalist working with Divya Himachal at Rajgarh. The complainant disclosed the story to said Rajesh Kamal, who assured the complainant that he would help the complainant to get justice, Rajesh Kamal gave a hidden button camera fitted in his shirt and advised the complainant to record all the activities of the petitioner during demand as well as at the time of receiving the money. The complainant paid Rs.3000/-, Rs.1000/- and another Rs.1000/- to the petitioner and recorded all events in the hidden button camera. He handed over three micro SD Cards to Rajesh Kamal who did not publish/telecast the video clips in the electronic / print media. It appears that the press reporter Rajesh Kamal mixed up with Rajinder Chauhan and had tried to conceal the evidence regarding the acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. 3. It has been reported in the status report that Bank Manager had paid Rs.1,42,000/- to Rajesh Kamal to settle the issue. Rajesh Kamal was associated in the investigation, who handedover the micro video recorder and three micro SD Cards to police. Micro SD Cards were played on the video player and CD was prepared separately. In 3 the CD recorded by the complainant, the petitioner was clearly seen accepting bribe/money from the complainant and raising demand for the wife and sister of the complainant. The records regarding loan etc.have been taken into possession. The petitioner has pressurized the complainant to give affidavit and settle the issue. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. On the contrary, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that investigation in the case is not complete and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. As per the Investigating Agency, micro SD Cards were played on the video player and CD was prepared separately. In the CD recorded by the complainant, the petitioner was clearly seen accepting bribe/money from the complainant and raising demand for the wife and sister of the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The investigation in the case is going on. It is not in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for releasing him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., resultantly, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. June 15,2009 ( Kuldip Singh ) (G.R.) Judge.