JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Surinder Singh Bhardwaj, the petitioner-herein is seeking anticipatory bail in case RC 14(A) 2003-CBI-CHG dated 9.5.2003, under Sections 7, 12(2), 7-C, 13(I) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is posted as Sub Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Chandigarh and is presently under suspension. The Central Bureau of Investigation swung into action in this case on a written complaint dated May 9, 2003 moved by Gurvinder Singh Samra, son of Gurdip Singh, resident of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, G.T. Road, Kartarpur, Jalandhar. The complaint is in Panjabi. The true translation of the same is reproduced as under "To The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Anti Corruption Branch, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh Sub : Regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 11 Lacs by Shri S.S. Bhardwaj, Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and R.M. Gupta District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar from the informant. Sir, Respectfully, it is submitted that I, Gurvinder Singh son of Gurdip Singh, am a resident of Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, G.T. Road, Kartarpur Distt. Jalandhar where I have been residing alongwith my family. I have been running a Private Hospital known as Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital for the last 8-10 years and I have been running a hotel named Las Vegas on the G.T. Road since February, 2003. There has not been any Criminal case by the police or any complaint of any kind against me till the year 1998. For the last about 4-5 years the police of Kartarpur and Jalandhar in connivance with some bad officers, in order to collect money from me started fabricating false cases as these people could not tolerate my progress and they poisoned the Senior Police officers against me. Out of these false cases, I was granted regular bail in two cases on 15.4.2003 and on 16.4.2003 the police registered two more fresh cases against me and on 20.4.2003 another similar fresh case was registered. Shri S.S. Bhardwaj Magistrate U.T. Chandigarh has been known to me since the year 1998 as during that period he was posted as Illaqa Magistrate in the Kartarpur Jalandhar court and I often used to pay visit to his house. I talked to him about my cases. He said that he would get my every thing set right and that I should come to him at Chandigarh. I talked to him about my cases. He said that he would get my every thing set right and that I should come to him at Chandigarh. I reached his official residence House No. 1221 Sector-22. We had a meeting for about one hour. In my presence he talked to Shri R.M. Gupta, District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the Senior Police officers. He also made me to have a talk on the telephone itself. At the instance of R.M. Gupta and S.S. Bhardwaj, I filed application for anticipatory bail in three cases. What R.M. Gupta and S.S. Bhardwaj asked me, I did accordingly and they also acted accordingly. In accordance with what R.M. Gupta has said, he allowed interim bail and issued three days notice. On 26th April, I received telephone call from S.S. Bhardwaj that payment of Rs. 11 lacs was to be made to R.M. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and the senior Police officers by 29.4.2003 and that I should come to him just then at Chandigarh. As asked by him, I reached his official residence. He said that Rs. 11 lacs be paid by the 29th whereupon all my bails would be got allowed. I did not pay money till 29th. So R.M. Gupta rejected all my bails. The police registered another fresh case FIR No. 42 on the 30th at Police Station Kartarpur against me. In the aforesaid case I have obtained bail from the High Court but bail in FIR No. 42 was yet to be obtained. Bhardwaj again contacted me that if I still paid the money, all my cases would get through otherwise this process would continue against me. In this connection Bhardwaj arranged my talk with R.M. Gupta on telephone and said that he would himself pay to the Sessions Judge and the senior Police officers. R.M. Gupta asked me on the telephone that I should settle everything with Bhardwaj and that whatever Bhardwaj says would be done accordingly. In this connection I continuously remained in touch with both these persons. Meetings used to be held and talks remained continued on the Mobile telephone. They kept sticking to the demand of Rs. 11 lacs and the matter was settled for making payment on 10.5.2003. In this connection I continuously remained in touch with both these persons. Meetings used to be held and talks remained continued on the Mobile telephone. They kept sticking to the demand of Rs. 11 lacs and the matter was settled for making payment on 10.5.2003. In this connection I had a meeting with Bhardwaj on 8.5.2003 in the evening at Hotel Sunbeam and on 9.5.2003 I talked to R.M. Gupta on telephone (illegible). As asked, I filed application for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 42 on 9.5.2003. The Sessions Judge said that retaining the anticipatory bail application with him, he would stay arrest on 10.5.2003 and by issuing notice to the police, he would confirm my anticipatory bail after 5/6 days and that I should pay the money on Saturday evening. He had said in case full amount could not be arranged, then I should make payment of Rs. 7 lacs by the evening of 10.5.2003 and that entire payment would have to be made before confirmation of the bail. Bhardwaj told that he would inform me on telephone as to where money is to be delivered. Neither I want to give bribe to anybody nor does my conscience allow me to do so. It is prayed that legal action may please be taken against him. I shall be thankful to you. 9.5.2003 Yours sincerely Sd/- Gurvinder Singh Samra s/o Gurdip Singh R/o Sri Guru Tegh Bhahadur Hospital, G.T. Road Kartarpur Jalandhar." 3. On the abovesaid allegations, the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered the present case on May 9, 2003. The case of the prosecution is that in this raid, prior authorisation was also obtained from Honble the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, who was pleased to depute Sh. L.R. Roojam, District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab to witness the proceedings. After completing the trap formalities the raid was conducted on 10.5.2003 at the official residence (House No. 221, Sector 22, Chandigarh) of the petitioner and he was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting Rs. seven lacs for himself and for Sh. R.M. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar from the complainant. This all was witnessed by two independent persons namely Shri Dev Raj and Sh. Madan Lal (Gazetted Officers). It is then the case of the prosecution that hand-wash of the petitioner was taken, which was found positive. seven lacs for himself and for Sh. R.M. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar from the complainant. This all was witnessed by two independent persons namely Shri Dev Raj and Sh. Madan Lal (Gazetted Officers). It is then the case of the prosecution that hand-wash of the petitioner was taken, which was found positive. The CBI further comes up with its case that when its officials were busy in completing other legal formalities at the residence of the petitioner on the night intervening May 10/11, 2003 in the presence of the abovesaid witnesses, the petitioner intentionally escaped from the said place at about 00-20 hours (i.e. 12-20 AM). In this regard a separate case FIR No. 217 under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code has also been registered against him on May 11, 2003 at 5-20 AM. 4. The petitioner moved his application for anticipatory bail before the Special Judge, Chandigarh, which stands declined vide impugned order dated May 22, 2003. He is now seeking the same relief from this court. 5. I have heard Mr. RS Ghai, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI. I have also gone through the bail application, the documents attached therewith as also the reply filed by the CBI. 6. Mr. Ghai has vehemently contended that as per the prosecution allegations, the bribe money was accepted at 6.30 PM on 10.5.2003 and that hand wash was also done at the same time but no recovery memo in this respect has been prepared by the CBI. He then contended that the formal arrest of the petitioner has not been shown immediately after the trap was over. According to Mr. Ghai subsequently a story has been concocted by the CBI that the petitioner intentionally escaped from his house at the night intervening May 10/11, 2003 at 12-20 AM and that another FIR was registered against him at police station Sector 17, Chandigarh under Section 224 at 5-20 AM on May 11, 2003. From this, the learned counsel wants to submit that in fact the petitioner was not present in his house at the alleged time of raid and that he has been subsequently implicated in this case. From this, the learned counsel wants to submit that in fact the petitioner was not present in his house at the alleged time of raid and that he has been subsequently implicated in this case. Developing this arguments further, the learned counsel contended that once the petitioner has not been formally arrested in this case, the question of registering another FIR under Section 224 Indian Penal Code does not arise and instead a case under Section 225-A Indian Penal Code should have been registered against the erring CBI officials. Strengthening his arguments, Mr. Ghai has submitted that it is humanly not possible that the petitioner would intentionally escape from custody of the CBI officials, who were 20 in number. 7. Mr. Ghai has drawn my attention to the reply Annexure PA/1 filed by the CBI before the Special Judge, Chandigarh, in which while replying to the petition filed therein, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI has stated that the petitioner was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 7 lacs from the complainant at his official residence on 10.5.2003 in the presence of independent witnesses as well as Shri L.R. Roojam, Sessions Judge (Vig.), Punjab whereas in another reply filed by the CBI to the present petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was caught red handed by the CBI while demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Dev Raj and Madan Lal at his official residence No. 221, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Mr. Ghai thus contends that these two contradictory statements/replies go to show that in fact nothing has been recovered in the presence of Sh. L.R. Roojam, Sessions Judge (Vig.) and that he has been subsequently imported as a witness to strengthen the alleged trap laid by the CBI. Mr. Ghai then alleges that so far as preparation of different documents is concerned, all that has been done leisurely by the CBI officials subsequently in order to complete the legal formalities. 8. Mr. Ghai has also contended that the prosecution story appears to be most improbable on the fact of it as it is not believable that being a judicial officer, the petitioner would accept the bribe money from the complainant in the presence of two strangers namely Dev Raj and Madan Lal. 8. Mr. Ghai has also contended that the prosecution story appears to be most improbable on the fact of it as it is not believable that being a judicial officer, the petitioner would accept the bribe money from the complainant in the presence of two strangers namely Dev Raj and Madan Lal. He has also canvassed a lot of criticism on the recovery part, saying that the petitioner would not open the sweet box containing the alleged bribe money and then start counting it in the presence of those strangers. Mr. Ghai sums up saying that the present case has been coined by the CBI on doubtful facts in a doubtful situation and thus the petitioner deserves concession of anticipatory bail. 9. Refuting the arguments of Mr. Ghai, Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI has submitted that the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any inherent lacuna. According to him the CBI officials reached the house of the petitioner at 6-30 PM and in the presence of two independent witnesses (gazetted officers) namely Dev Raj and Madan Lal, the bribe of Rs. Seven lacs was demanded and accepted by the petitioner. Mr. Gupta then contended that so far as Mr. L.R. Roojam is concerned, he steps in during the post-trap proceedings. He reached the house of the petitioner at 7-20 PM and all the post-trap proceedings were then conducted in his presence upto 10-30 PM. Mr. Gupta then contended that even if no recovery memo or hand-wash memo was prepared at 6-30 PM, it would not make any difference as all the proceedings done in this case are depicted in the post-trap memo in detail, which is signed by the witnesses. Mr. Gupta has read over the statements of Sh. L.R. Roojam, District & Sessions Judge (Vig.) and one Rajinder Thapa, Home Peon of the petitioner before me in which they have stated that the petitioner was present in his house when both these witnesses reached there and subsequently he managed to escape. Mr. Gupta submits that there is no reason to disbelieve Mr. L.R. Roojam, District & Sessions Judge (Vig.) and one Rajinder Thapa, Home Peon of the petitioner before me in which they have stated that the petitioner was present in his house when both these witnesses reached there and subsequently he managed to escape. Mr. Gupta submits that there is no reason to disbelieve Mr. L.R. Roojam, District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Punjab who was deputed to join the raid, after obtaining the requisite orders from Honble the Chief Justice strictly in accordance with the guide-lines laid by the Apex Court in its decision in Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others, (1991)4 Supreme Court Cases 406. 10. Mr. Gupta further contended that even if certain documents regarding the formal arrest of the petitioner were not prepared immediately after the raid, to all intends and purposes, the petitioner was in custody of the CBI and that another FIR under section 224 Indian Penal Code was rightly registered against him. 11. It was then contended by Mr. Gupta that the present case is at a very delicate stage of investigation for which the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required and that the CBI has in its possession a tape- recorded conversation held between the present petitioner, Sh. R.M. Gupta, District & Sessions Judge (under suspension) and the complainant and the petitioner has to be confronted with certain other facts for which his custodial interrogation is essential. The petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, Mr. Gupta so contended. 12. I refrain myself from expressing opinion touching the merits, lest it may affect the case of either side at any stage. 13. Cutting short the unnecessary details, the pivotal point which emerges from the situation is as to the desirability or otherwise of granting the anticipatory bail sought for by the petitioner. 14. In my view, this case is typical by its nature. There are no grounds to treat the matter as of an ordinary run of the mill. It is a nightmare for a common man to trust the Court as a temple and judge as hermit. On the face of it, the matter is very serious. It does not talk well of judiciary. The propensity to indulge in such like conduct is condemnable. It is a nightmare for a common man to trust the Court as a temple and judge as hermit. On the face of it, the matter is very serious. It does not talk well of judiciary. The propensity to indulge in such like conduct is condemnable. A very stern view has got to be taken on the face of the facts brought out on record. The sacrosanct edifice of the last resort of people will be shaken in its foundation if the ostensible malady of corruption goes unchecked at any rung. The adder of corruption has to be nipped in its growth. The act and conduct of a judicial officer are certainly subject to judicial scrutiny. In my view, the investigation of the present case should not be throttled at its threshold and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be result-oriented. 15. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and magnitude of seriousness of the alleged offence, it causes pain to think of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the instant case. Consequently the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, nothing stated/observed hereinabove should be construed to be an expression of opinion on the final adjudication of the case on merits. Petition dismissed.