The judgment emphasizes the importance of genuine evidence, the requirement for proof of offense in accordance with legal procedures, and the distinction between moral violations and criminal offenses.

( 1 ). By this petition under Sections 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short cr. P. C. )/ petitioner, who was a former judge of this Court, is seeking bail in the case R. C. No. 3 (A)/2003/acu- x/cbi/ac-III, New Delhi under Sections 120-B, IPC, read with Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter poc Act ).

( 2 ). CBI has filed reply opposing the petition and also praying for cancellation of interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 5. 5. 2003 passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 1817/2003. On 4. 6. 2003 Hon ble Mr. Justice B. A. Khan, while issuing notice, extended the interim bail till further orders, observing:

"meanwhile, he is asking for extension of interim bail granted to him by order dated 5. 5. 2003 on medical grounds of his wife and on other attendant circumstances which is to expire on 12. 6. 2003. The basis of his application remains the same though he asserts that condition of his wife Buffering from advance stage of Amyotrophic Lateral sclerosis disease was deteriorating and that she had became totally paralysed by now. It is also submitted that due to advanced stagesof the progression disease, her lung function had also dropped requiring outside machine assisted respiratory support which could be operated by petitioner or his son who had left for Kolkata on 27. 5. 2003. It is also averred that petitioner s problems had multiplied due to his mother s illness, shifting of his house and refusal of specialist doctors of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital to attend to his wife. Considering all this and also that petitioner had remained in police custody for 12 days and had co-operated with the investigation, interim bail granted to him shall stand extended after 12. 06. 2003 till further orders from the court on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court/duty Magistrate. List on 15. 7. 2003. "

( 3 ). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: One Dharamvir khattar (for short dvk ), a businessman, was having close relationship with petitioner and Subhash Sharma, IAS, vice-chairman, Delhi Development authority (for short vc-DDA ); petitioner used to enjoy his hospitality in terms of wine and women and DVK used to act as a conduit for the parties, who wanted their cases pending in petitioner s court to be settled favourably. Official record of petitioner s court used to be taken to the offices of DVK at mathura Road and Khel Gaon. On 26. 3. 2003 CBI caught Ashok Kapur, P. S. to former VC-DDA (under suspension) when he was taking out files from the office of DVK at Mathura Road, including the files of the cases in petitioner s court and six page unsigned corrected draft of the order dated 20. 02. 2003, passed by the petitioner in the suit Azad Singh v. DDA and Ors. , (No. 1493/2000) (hereinafter the order in question ). Facts leading to the filing of this suit are : that in 1993 DDA decided to widen Aruna Asaf Ali Road, connecting outer ring road and the Mehrauli-Mahilpur Road, to 30 meters; in 1995, it was decided to increase its width to 45 meters. The work was entrusted to Public Works Department (PWD ). A strip of land passing through village Kishangarh, could not be handed over to PWD as there were several encroachments. The demolition of unauthorised structures could not be carried because of injunction orders passed by different courts in favour of the affected parties. Two such suits were pending in the Delhi High Court (i) suit No. 236/2000 titled Simla Choudhury v. DDA and Ors. , wherein Hon ble mr. Justice J. D. Kapoor vide order dated 1. 2. 2003 had restrained the defendant dda from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law and (ii) suit No. 1493/2000 titled Azad Singh v. DDA and Ore. , wherein vide order dated 30. 9. 2002, passed by the petitioner, parties were directed to maintain status q