JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has returned the amount of loan taken from the petitioner a long back, otherwise the petitioner never took any bribe from him and the same explanation was given by the petitioner on the spot. Learned counsel also submits that no work of complainant was pending with the petitioner, bill for payment of first instalment of subsidy was already sent to the treasury, the complainant is habitual of making complaints to the ACB. During arguments, learned counsel submitted a copy of FIR No.1/2005 Police Station, CPS, ACB lodged by the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2016, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of both the counsel, after perusing the case diary and material made available before us and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case which may otherwise affect the outcome of the case but looking to the explanation given by the petitioner on the spot and fact that the bill for payment of first instalment of subsidy was already sent to the treasury, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Consequently, this bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioners Sandeep Kumar Khangar be released on bail in F.I.R. No.73/2016 registered at Police Station, CPS, ACB, Jaipur for offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) together with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance on each and every hearing till completion of trial.