JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions bearing Crl.M.Nos.M-32285, 13807 and 33664 of 2011 filed by petitioners- Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate, Moti Lal Jindal, and Daulat Ram Sharma respectively, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.RC-CHG-2011-A0009, dated 18.4.2011, under Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti Corruption Branch), Sector 30, Union Territory, Chandigarh. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. Brief allegations are that Swami Devi Dayal Law College, Village Golpura, Tehsil Barwala, District Panchkula, Haryana, had been conducting three year LLB and five year BA LLB courses. College is affiliated to Kurukshetra University. It was granted temporary approval for conducting the aforesaid courses in the Legal Education Committee meeting of Bar Council of India held on 19.1.2007, for the sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09. College was required to have recognition from Bar Council of India as per the procedure prescribed under Bar Council of India Education Rules 2007 for conducting the said courses and hence an application was submitted by the College on 17.9.2010 to Bar Council of India for re-inspection. Petitioner-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma were assigned the task of conducting the inspection of the college on 27th and 28th October, 2010. There are further allegations that petitioner-accused Moti Lal Jindal, Vice Chairman of the said College and President of Swami Devi Dayal High Tech. Education Academy remained in regular contact with coaccused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma on telephone to obtain favourable report by paying illegal gratification to them. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy, they negotiated about bribe money and petitioneraccused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma, demanded and obtained illegal gratification of Rs.1.25 lacs on 28.10.2010 from petitioneraccused Moti Lal Jindal for conducting inspection of the College and for submitting report. Inspection was conducted on 28.10.2010 and favourable inspection report was submitted on the basis of which Legal Education Committee in its meeting held on 13.11.2010 approved the three years LLB and five years courses in Swami Devi Dayal Law College for the sessions 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. Inspection was conducted on 28.10.2010 and favourable inspection report was submitted on the basis of which Legal Education Committee in its meeting held on 13.11.2010 approved the three years LLB and five years courses in Swami Devi Dayal Law College for the sessions 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 4. It has been contended by learned senior counsel for petitioneraccused Rajinder Singh Rana that in the FIR, telephone numbers on which petitioners-accused allegedly remained in contact have been mentioned as 9876866688 and 01734-258627 and, however, there was no permission of the competent authority for intercepting the said telephones. It is further contended that respondent-CBI has failed to show as to what favour was shown by the members of the Committee to the College of co-accused Moti Lal Jindal in submitting the report and that in the various replies submitted on behalf of respondent-CBI, it has been stated that the said matter is still under investigation. It is further submitted that petitioner already joined investigation on various dates as per order of this Court dated 25.10.2011, vide which interim bail was granted to petitioner-accused and hence, it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is not necessary. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused Daulat Ram Sharma that the report submitted by members of the Committee is factually correct and the same is regarding infrastructure existing in the College which was accepted and on the basis of which recognition was granted and hence, it is contended that there was no question of receiving any illegal gratification by petitioner-accused Daulat Ram Sharma from co-accused Moti Lal Jindal for giving alleged favourable report. It is also contended that petitioner has already joined the investigation pursuant to order of this Court and that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 6. It has been further contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused Moti Lal Jindal that College was already having recognition since the year 2007 and the inspection was also conducted by Kurukshetra University on 24.9.2010 and favourable report was given and that Bar Council of India had been granting permission to law Colleges on the basis of inspection report given by the respective Universities and hence, it is contended that there was no motive for petitioner-Moti Lal Jindal to bribe co-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma. He has also contended that he has already joined the investigation and all the documents have been handed over to the CBI and that even he had also given sample of his voice. 7. However, bail applications have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the CBI on the plea that on receipt of reliable information, requisite permission was sought from Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for intercepting Mobile bearing No.9312222807. It is further submitted that as per order dated 22.9.2010 of the Ministry of Home Affairs permission was granted to CBI to intercept any telephone message relating to clandestine contact/ movement/ activity etc. to and from telephone No.9312222807 and to disclose to Director CBI. It is further submitted that the said telephone number belongs to petitioner-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and that he was in constant contact with his co-accused on their telephones including telephone number mentioned in the FIR. Hence, it is contended that merely because the telephone number mentioned in the FIR has not been mentioned in the order dated 22.9.2010 is immaterial as the telephone calls were given from telephone No.9312222807 and were also received on the said telephone number. It is further submitted that as per conversation on the said telephones which had taken place between all the three accused, there was demand of illegal gratification by petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma and co-accused Moti Lal Jindal has admitted having paid Rs.1.25 lacs as illegal gratification. He has also drawn my attention towards various conversations between all the three accused in this regard. It is further submitted that even if it is taken that report regarding infrastructure was given as per the existing position, from the conversation it is proved that illegal gratification was demanded and given for giving the said report. It is further submitted that though petitioners-accused have joined the investigation and, however, they are not cooperating in the investigation and the entire transaction which had taken place between all the three accused would be unearthed only if they are subjected to custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that moreover petitioners-accused are trying to interfere in the investigation and trying to create false evidence and hence, not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that moreover petitioners-accused are trying to interfere in the investigation and trying to create false evidence and hence, not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. It has been contended that admittedly petitioners-accused during inspection stayed in hotel Western Court, Site No.2, Sector 10, Panchkula, and the entire expenditure was borne by the Institute. It is further submitted that this fact is proved from the record of the hotel, where it has been mentioned that the expenditure would be borne by the Institute. It is further submitted that the said hotel was having account of the said Institute and the amount of Rs.2611.79 and Rs.5876.58 was debited to the said account regarding expenditure on the request of petitioners Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma on 28.10.2010 and the payment of the same alongwith other payment was made to the said hotel by the Institute vide receipt dated 21.3.2011. He had shown me copies of the relevant registration card of petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma, copies of bill, copies of statement of account and the copies of receipt, vide which payment was made by the Institute to the said Hotel. It is further submitted that statement of Pardeep Kumar, Front Office Executive of Hotel Western Court in this regard was recorded by CBI on 27.5.2011, in which he had stated that the expenditure regarding stay of petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma was made by the Institute and the amount of the bill had already been received. It is further submitted that however, thereafter illegal notices were got issued by petitioners-accused from the said hotel demanding the said payment again from petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma and petitioners-accused had shown having made payment again of the said bills which were already cleared by the Institute, vide cheques. It is further submitted that statement of an official of the hotel was also got recorded by the CBI before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula on 1.6.2012 in which it was admitted by the official of the Hotel that notices were issued at the instance of the accused. Hence, it is contended that petitioners-accused are trying to create false evidence. 8. It is further submitted that statement of an official of the hotel was also got recorded by the CBI before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula on 1.6.2012 in which it was admitted by the official of the Hotel that notices were issued at the instance of the accused. Hence, it is contended that petitioners-accused are trying to create false evidence. 8. At this stage, it is immaterial as to whether reports submitted by petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma regarding Institute of petitioner-accused Moti Lal Jindal is based on correct facts or not or as to whether he has shown any favour in submitting the report or not. However, prima facie, respondent-CBI has been able to show to this Court that all the three petitioners-accused remained in contact on telephones and bribe was actually demanded and given by petitioner-accused Moti Lal Jindal to petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma for submitting the report on the basis of which requisite recognition was granted to the Institute. Respondent-CBI has also been able to prima facie show to this Court that petitioners-accused are trying to create false evidence. They stayed as guests of the Institute during the inspection in the hotel and the bill of the hotel was paid by the Institute and, however, when the said fact came during investigation, false notices were got issued by petitioners-accused from the officials of the hotel demanding the said amount again from them and payment was shown to have been made by cheques by petitioners-accused Rajinder Singh Rana and Daulat Ram Sharma. 9. It is pertinent to refer to observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in State represented by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR SC 3806. “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 10. On the peculiar facts of the present case, as narrated above, the present is such a case in which custodial interrogation of the petitionersaccused would be necessary to elucidate more information and to unearth the entire matter. 11. Hence, I am of the view that petitioners-accused are not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, all the present petitions filed by petitioners-Rajinder Singh Rana, Moti Lal Jindal and Daulat Ram Sharma for grant of anticipatory bail are, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13. Interim orders dated 25.10.2011, 6.5.2011 and 9.11.2011 already granted in favour of petitioners stand vacated. ---------0.B.S.0------------