IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 32461 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : January 30, 2009 Shri Bhagwan and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. DS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. SS Pattar, Sr. DAG Haryana Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) Petitioners have brought this petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.239 dated 9.11.2008 under sections 323, 324 IPC and section 7, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Rajindera Park, Gurgaon. The allegations against the petitioners, who are Police Head Constables of Police Station Rajindera Park, Gurgaon, are that on 4.11.2008 at about 4.30 PM, they had caught four boys namely Sandeep, Vipin, Dinesh Prajapat and Praveen Dangi while sitting with one lady Jyoti in a plot situated in Nihal Colony, New Palam Vihar. Ultimately, they all were brought to the police station and there a threat was given to involve them in a rape case if an amount of Rs 50,000/- was not paid to them. Their family members were also informed as a result of which father of Sandeep Criminal Misc. -M No. 32461 of 2008 (O&M) -2- arrived there and paid Rs 50,000/- to the petitioners to secure their release. Later on, the matter was reported to the police by Sandeep. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it comes out that after the registration of the case on the aforesaid allegations, both the petitioners had approached the victim of this case and tried to win over them. In that behalf, it is revealed from the order of learned Sessions Judge that affidavits of Dinesh and Parveen Dangi have also been obtained stating therein that no money was demanded or accepted from them and later on both the petitioners along with other persons also approached the father of Sandeep and also returned a sum of Rs 50,000/- which they (petitioners) had already taken as bribe from him. The said amount was taken into possession by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is investigating officer in this case vide recovery memo dated 25.12.2008. Keeping in view the seriousness and the gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled to bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that the provisions under the aforesaid section are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. Criminal Misc. is dismissed. ( Pritam Pal ) January 30, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'