JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail relating to FIR No. RC No. 2 of 2016 dated 28.1.2016 registered at Police Station CBI Shimla H.P. under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2. It is pleaded that case under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station CBI Shimla H.P. It is further pleaded that petitioner is a private businessman who is running his business for last many years at Shimla. It is further pleaded that petitioner did not demand any money from the complainant at any point of time. It is further pleaded that petitioner is in judicial custody and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner in the present case. It is further pleaded that petitioner will join the investigation of the case whenever and wherever required to do so. It is further pleaded that petitioner would not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of the non-petitioner pleaded therein that Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari S/o Sh. Anirudh Singh filed his online application for issuance of passport from Passport Office Shimla. It is further pleaded that Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari was given appointment to appear before the Passport authorities on 27.1.2016 at 10.00 hours. It is further pleaded that Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari appeared before the Passport Officer along with his original documents including his old Passport No. F3751688 which was valid up to 8.6.2015. It is further pleaded that when petitioner appeared before the Passport authority Shimla H.P. then Passport Officer verbally denied to accept the application and told complainant that his old passport is in damaged condition and complainant was asked to go out of passport office. It is further pleaded that when Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari came out from Passport Office Panchaghati Shimla H.P. he was contacted by accused who promised the complainant to get his work done from the Passport Office against the consideration of bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand). It is further pleaded that thereafter Sh. It is further pleaded that when Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari came out from Passport Office Panchaghati Shimla H.P. he was contacted by accused who promised the complainant to get his work done from the Passport Office against the consideration of bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand). It is further pleaded that thereafter Sh. Anil Kumar Chaudhari complainant on 27.1.2016 filed complaint in the CBI Branch Shimla alleging demand of bribe. It is further pleaded that investigation of the case was entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI Branch Shimla. It is further pleaded that bribe amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) i.e. 15 government currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) each were treated with phenolphthalein power and distinctive numbers of the above currency notes were mentioned in the pre-trap memo and the same were kept in the pocket of the complainant to be handed over to accused. It is further pleaded that on completion of pretrap proceedings CBI proceeded to Passport Office Panthaghati Shimla. It is further pleaded that accused Rahul was caught red handed while demanding and accepting Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) from complainant in the presence of witnesses. It is further pleaded that hand washes of co-accused Rahul were took in the colorless solution of sodium carbonate which was turned into pink colour proving the acceptance of bribe. It is further pleaded that accused Rahul accepted his guilt and disclosed that he is an employee of Sh. Shyam Walia co-accused and used to contact the passport official to get favours against the consideration of bribe. It is further pleaded that thereafter co-accused Sh. Shyam Walia was called and he also confessed his guilt. It is further pleaded that both the accused persons were arrested on 28.1.2016 and were produced before Court of Sessions Judge Shimla exercising powers of Special Judge CBI Shimla. It is further pleaded that on the request of CBI learned Court below was pleased to grant three days police remand and on completion of police remand both the accused were produced before Court on 1.2.2016 and learned Court below was pleased to grant judicial custody to both the accused persons. It is further pleaded that on 1.2.2016 both the accused persons moved bail application before learned court below and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further pleaded that on 1.2.2016 both the accused persons moved bail application before learned court below and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further pleaded that co-accused Rahul was caught red handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) from the complainant at the behest of his employer co-accused. It is further pleaded that case is in the investigation stage and it is further pleaded that important documents of passport office are yet to be taken and examine. It is further pleaded that accused persons are having influence in the passport office and there is every likelihood that petitioner would influence the officials in order to distort the evidence. It is further pleaded that till the completion of investigation petitioner be not released on bail. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- Point No. 1 Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is innocent and petitioner did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same facts will be decided by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is in judicial custody and not required for investigation purpose and on this ground bail application be allowed is rejected for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) Larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature qua taking of bribe of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) through co-accused Rahul employee of petitioner. Case has been registered against the petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner demanded Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) as bribe for preparation of passport of the complainant through his employee co-accused Rahul. Passport authority is public authority. Court is of the opinion that offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is offence against public at large. In the present case investigation is still under progress and investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. not filed before competent Court of law. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the petitioner on bail at this stage till the investigation is not completed and till investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is not filed before the competent Court of law. Court is also of the opinion that investigation will be adversely affected if petitioner is released on bail at this stage. Court is also of the opinion that interest of State and general public will also be affected adversely if petitioner is released on bail at this stage. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioner CBI that investigation is in the initial state and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage then investigation will be adversely affected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of the Court that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then petitioner will induce and threat the prosecution witnesses. Court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release petitioner on bail till the investigation is completed and till the investigation report is not filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 9. In view of findings upon point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner is dismissed. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 9. In view of findings upon point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner is dismissed. However petitioner will be at liberty to file subsequent bail application after completion of investigation and after filing of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent court of law. Observations made in this order will not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Bail application disposed of. All pending application (s) if any also disposed of.