JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

The applicant, Sub Inspector Suresh Sharma, who is in custody since 06.09.2019, through the medium of this application seeks his release on bail. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption, Act Svt. 2006 and Section 4-S of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2014.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the police station Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajouri received a written information from Ajay pal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as complainant), regarding demand from him by Sub Inspector Suresh Sharma (hereinafter to be referred as applicant). It is said that maternal uncle of the complainant Sharanjit Singh has been arrested in a fake case registered by the applicant, who was posted as Incharge Police Post Rajouri City. On 05.09.2019, when the complainant visited the Police Post, Rajouri City and enquired the matter from the applicant, the applicant demanded three lacs from him for helping his maternal uncle during investigation of the case. Out of three lacs, one lac was agreed to be paid in advance and rest of amount after bail out of his maternal uncle. It was stated that applicant threatened the complainant of harassing his maternal uncle in case he fails to pay bribe. On this complaint, a case FIR No. 02/2019 was registered on 06.09.2019, against the applicant and investigation was entrusted to Dy. S.P Gurmeet Singh Ghuman, a trap laying officer. On the intervening night of 6th and 7th September, 2019, a trap was laid to catch hold of applicant accepting bribe red handed. Accordingly, after completion of pre-trap proceedings, the complainant contacted the applicant on his mobile phone that he is coming with money and the applicant told him to come to his residential room. The said conversation of mobile phone is stated to have been tapped. The complainant alongwith shadow witness Sardar Mohd. Malik, A.E. entered the residential room of the applicant where he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of one lakh from the complainant and kept it in right pocket of his Short (Nikkar). On receiving the signal, the other team members nabbed the applicant on spot and from his personal search in presence of independent witnesses, bribe amount was recovered from his possession. In order to ascertain the genuineness of acceptance of bribe, a solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which the finger of right hand of the applicant, his right hand and the pocket of Nikkar worn by him were washed, which gave positive result. Serial numbers of recovered GC notes were tallied with the slips possessed by the independent witnesses bearing serial numbers and denomination prepared during pre-trap proceedings and on comparison, it was found the same. Samples alongwith tainted currency notes were sealed and marked as exhibits in presence of independent witnesses who also signed the memo. The applicant-accused was taken into custody by the police team.

3. I have heard and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file.

4. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant has been arrested in a false and frivolous case and there was no demand or acceptance of bribe, so he is entitled for bail.

5. Non-applicant has filed the objections, insisting therein that the investigation in the case is at initial stage and the act of the applicant-accused being an officer of law enforcement agency is highly deplorable, because of which trust of the society at large has been shaken. It is also contended that applicant-accused is not cooperating with investigating agency, therefore his custodial questioning is required to ascertain some material facts. It is also stated that that investigation is yet to be concluded and there is possibility of accused winning over the material witnesses and may threaten the complainant.

6. Objections on behalf of the complainant have al