Crl. Misc. No. M-31098 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-31098 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: February 02, 2010 Baljit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. prays for bail in case FIR No. 318 dated 26.10.2009 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Ambala Cantt. District Ambala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant has a criminal record and is involved in a number of cases. Rather he is an accused in FIR No. 267 dated 14.09.2009 under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Ambala Cantt., in which a notice was issued to the complainant under Section 160 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner. Learned counsel further states that in Prevention of Corruption Act, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation particularly considering his unblemished service record. Ms. Bharti Arora, IPC, S.P. Ambala is present in Court. An affidavit has already been filed sworn by Ms. Bharti Arora. It has been brought out from the affidavit that the complainant recorded the Crl. Misc. No. M-31098 of 2009 2 conversation which he had with the petitioner in which demand for illegal gratification was made. The petitioner gave the voice sample which has been sent for comparison. Ms. Bharti Arora states that in case the sample voice matches with the voice of the petitioner on the recording made by the complainant, petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. Ms. Bharti Arora has further assured the Court that considering the fact that the petitioner is a police official, arrest would be effected only if for proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. I have considered the issue. Allegations in the FIR is that the petitioner was posted in Police Station Ambala Cantt. and called the complainant on his mobile demanding money. The complainant was also threatened that if the money was not given, the complainant would be implicated in some false case by the CIA staff, Ambala. Under threat, some money was given to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, made repeated demands of money. Considering the nature of offence and the stand taken by none other but S.P. Ambala, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. It is, however, made clear to Ms. Bharti Arora that in case the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, the custody of the petitioner be not taken. 02.02.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE