IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No.505 of 2009 Decided on : June 26, 2009 Rajesh Kamal …Applicant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant : Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Applicant is a Press Reporter. There are serious allegations against him that even though he provided apparatus, like button camera and certain other things, for a sting operation, on a bank Manager, who had demanded money and sexual favours, for releasing a portion of the sanctioned amount of loan, he, on having been returned the CDs and the camera, did not publish the contents of the CDs, as promised by him to the complainant and instead took a bribe of Rs.1,20,000/- from the concerned Manager to hush up the matter. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the printouts of the mobile phone of the applicant suggest that he had made calls to the Chief General Manager of the concerned Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Bank and also to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), informing them about the sting operation. He has produced the printouts. As per these printouts, five calls were made on 8th May, 2009. The sting operation had taken place on 6th April, 2009. That means for atleast 50 days the applicant kept quiet about the CDs, in which there are video and audio versions of the Manager, accepting the bribe and demanding that the complainant made available either his wife or sister for bedding with the Manager. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant has been implicated by the Investigating Officer, as an act of vengeance and initially his name was not there in the FIR lodged by the complainant. There is no material, atleast for the time being, on record, suggestive of the Investigating Officer acting in a vindictive manner. 5. The mater being of very serious nature, requiring sustained interrogation of the applicant, who is a Press Reporter and as such under legal and moral obligation to bring this kind of serious things to the notice of the public. Hence, his request for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. Application stands disposed of. June 26, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J