JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) SHRI V. D. Upadhyaya, Counsel for the applicant and Shri m. N. Pendharkar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State, are heard on the question of grant of bail. ( 2. ) ONE of the grounds on which the bail application has been rejected is that the investigation is not yet complete. Rejection of bail application on this ground is illegal, in view of the Supreme Court pronouncement made in state of Maharashtra v. Nainamal Punjali Shan and another (1970 SCC (Cr.) 170 ). The following observations have been made by their Lordships in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra) :- "while we are impressed with the extraordinary nature of the facts of this case and that the investigation should proceed fairly and efficiently, it is impossible to say that no bail should be granted to the respondents during the pendency of the whole of the investigation. There must be absolute certainty of leaving the country before a Court would detain an accused indefinitely during the whole period of investigation. " The view of this Court in Sube Tunde Kachi v. State (1962 M P L J 1097) taken by Honble justice A. H. Khan is as under :- "accused was arrested on a charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code. His bail application was rejected on the ground that investigation was incomplete. His second application filed after completion of investigation was also rejected observing that the bail application would be considered after eye-witnesses were examined. Held, that bail applications are usually decided after perusing Police papers. A bail application can be entertained even before investigation is complete. This follows from amendment of section 497 by Act I of 1956. " ( 3. ) IT is not shown in what manner keeping the applicant in Police custody/or judicial custody will be necessary. So far as identification is concerned, the second proviso to section 437 (1) Criminal Procedure Code lays down that that consideration cannot be a relevant consideration for refusal of bail. ( 4. ) SO far as question of recovery is concerned, suffice it to say that the investigating agency has no right to compel any person accused of an offence to make disclosure, which may lead to recovery of weapon of attack or any other incriminating material. ( 4. ) SO far as question of recovery is concerned, suffice it to say that the investigating agency has no right to compel any person accused of an offence to make disclosure, which may lead to recovery of weapon of attack or any other incriminating material. In this view of the matter, the other consideration can be existence of reasonable apprehension that the accused may tamper with the evidence. There is no such allegation yet advanced on behalf of the state by filing affidavit of the investigating officer concerned. ( 5. ) IN order to ensure appearance of the accused/applicant before the investigating agency or the Court concerned, it will suffice to raise the amount of security. It is not stated on behalf of the State that there are no chances of the applicant of taking the trial. No affidavit has been filed to that effect on behalf of the State. ( 6. ) I am aware of the fact that the present application is application for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The guidelines provided by the Parliament in section 437, Criminal procedure Code have to be adhered to in consideration of such applications also. The judicial discretion in the grant of anticipatory bail cannot be exercised in a manner different and/or contrary to the principles laid down in the aforesaid provision. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, I direct that the applicant shall be in the event of his arrest released on bail if he furnishes solvent security for an amount of Rs 5000 to the satisfaction of the police officer concerned, and enters into a personal recognizance (bond) of like amount, provided further that the security bond and the personal bond inter alia contain the following conditions also : (1) That the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (2) That the applicant shall 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. A certified copy of this order be given today to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of necessary charges. Application allowed.