JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant has issued a false medical Certificate to one Smt. Jaya Sharma and the entire episode of issuance of such fake Certificate on an alleged payment of bribe has been recorded in a sting operation conducted by the complainant and his associates, where after the F.I.R. was lodged. The complainant is one Arvind Chaturvedi, who has disclosed his occupation by a TV correspondent, of a channel known as “India TV”. The F.I.R. alleges that the Certificate was in respect of fabricated injuries which were prepared by one Subhash, who is a sweeper in the hospital where the applicant is posted as a Physician. It is alleged that another sweeper Chandra Pal accepted a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- which has been given in front of the applicant and Subhash where after the applicant issued a medical Certificate. 3. Sri Mishra has urged that the applicant has not accepted any bribe nor has he issued any fake Certificate and that the sting operation has been manufactured with a view to implicate the applicant. The Certificate was issued on a proper physical examination of the concerned lady. There was no apparent reason for not examining the lady who had some scratches on her body. Such sting operations are being carried out in order to blackmail people holding public offices. Sri Mishra contends that there is no legal sanctity of such a sting operation inasmuch as such an evidence allegedly caught on a Camera is inadmissible and is of no evidentiary value acknowledged in law. He further contends that such films are even prepared by persons who are interested in selling sensational news and there is every possibility of an edited version being shown on the Television. It is urged that no action can be taken on the basis of such evidence and at the best it may be only a lead in investigation. Such activities are carried out at times even by unscrupulous individuals with a view to malign the image of respectable persons of the Society. The applicant is almost on the verge of retirement and has had an unblemished career. 4. Such activities are carried out at times even by unscrupulous individuals with a view to malign the image of respectable persons of the Society. The applicant is almost on the verge of retirement and has had an unblemished career. 4. Sri Mishra has further urged that there is no such recognized system of trapping a person through the alleged method of the sting operations. On the contrary, the methods provided for a trap are acknowledged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the procedure provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code. A sting operation is not a recognized procedure and does not have any authority of law. He urges that in view of this position, the alleged depiction of an incident through a sting operation cannot be made the basis of the prosecution nor can it be treated to be a credible piece of evidence for convicting anyone. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, contends that the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of a false medico legal report and, therefore, the allegations cannot be disbelieved. 6. Sri Mishra in rejoinder has urged that the allegation of receiving the bribe is assigned to one Chandra Pal and not to the applicant. He contends that in this view of the matter, it is obvious that the alleged acceptance of bribe has been planted on the applicant and, therefore, the same cannot be a basis refusing bail to the applicant at this stage. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it is true that sting operations can at the best be leads for investigation and as far as the existing provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Act are concerned, they are not admissible in evidence unless proved and corroborated by further material evidence recognized in law. The depiction of photographic exhibition through sting operations is, therefore, yet to be accepted in law as a credible piece of evidence. This issue has been debated in a large number of cases and the Court has not been made aware of any settled position of law in this regard. However, prima facie, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant on this issue appears to be correct. To support his contentions and substantiate the aforesaid issue, Sri P.N. Mishra has relied on the order passed in the case of Dr. However, prima facie, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant on this issue appears to be correct. To support his contentions and substantiate the aforesaid issue, Sri P.N. Mishra has relied on the order passed in the case of Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta v. State, reported in 2005 ACC (1) 89. 8. The facts as they stand today, therefore, indicate that the applicant has not accepted bribe directly. The prosecution did not lay any trap to implicate the applicant as per the recognized methods under law. In this view of the matter, the veracity of the story set up in the F.I.R. through the sting operation is yet to be examined and proved in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot be straight way accepted on its face value as on today in order to deny bail to the applicant. The co-accused, who have allegedly fabricated the injury and accepted the bribe, have already been granted bail by the Court below. A mere presumption, that a sweeper of the hospital could have only accepted the bribe, had there been some understanding with the higher officials, is not sufficient to believe the allegations. It is quite possible, conversely, that the sweeper may have indulged into something on his own for his personal considerations. There is also a possibility of trapping the applicant with some vengeance which possibilities cannot be ruled out in the present set up of society. At time, public officials, when fail to oblige people, such incidents do take place. 9. The method of sting operation without any sanction or authority, therefore, is leading to several reported cases of irresponsible journalism. Broadcasting of unverified news at times is not only an embarrassment for the affected person but is also a new trend of blackmailing. The authorities enjoined with the duty of bringing about appropriate legislation should immediately take cognizance of such situations, as they are obliged to let the public at large to know about their rights of privacy and unwarranted invasions of the privacy of an individual. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution under Article 19 have time and again been restricted by appropriate legislations and conversely the right of access to information has also been curtailed in the interest of the security of the State and also for the protection of the individual rights of the citizens. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution under Article 19 have time and again been restricted by appropriate legislations and conversely the right of access to information has also been curtailed in the interest of the security of the State and also for the protection of the individual rights of the citizens. The liberty of a citizen to lead a decent and private life cannot be permitted to be eroded so as to intrude upon his personal liberty protected under the Constitution. The official discharge of duties of a public servant in good faith is protected under the law. Such protections have to be blended with transparency but within the prescribed limits so as to preserve the sanctity and smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. Any further intrusion by a third agency may lead to indisciplined action raising complications and may also constitute interference with the course of justice. Investigative journalism does not authorize journalists or TV correspondents to take over the official job of investigation or collection of evidence under the present law of the land. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, the applicant is also entitled for bail. Let the applicant - Dr. Subhash Chandra Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 696 of 2007, under Sections - 13 (1), 13 (2), 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 467,468,471,420 I.P.C., Police Station - Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. ————