Order It is contended for the prosecution by the learned Public Prosecutor that the provisions of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, are required to be utilised when the prosecution agency misdirects or attempts to oppress or harass innocent persons for political or other reasons and that having regard to the amended provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act it would not be proper to release prohibition offenders on anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the power under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, are not to be exercised mechanically but only on the satisfaction of the conditions laid in the section itself. He invited my attention to Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. Stale of Punjab1. The learned Judges of the Full Bench are of the view that the power under section 438 , Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only, and that in addition to the limitations imposed in section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail and that mere allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate and the Court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegation of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that he is concerned only with the propriety of the order being made under section 438 , Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of offences committed under, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. A reading of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, shows that there are only two conditions which must exist before a petitioner can move an application under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. They are: (i) there must exist a ground that the petitioner has reason to believe that he may be arrested, and (ii) there must be an accusation of his having committed a non-bailable offence. There are no other grounds. It is therefore plain and clear that there is no legal bar to apply for anticipatory bail in respect of offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. In my view to hold that it would not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act would render the material provisions of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, virtually nugatory. In my view to hold that it would not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act would render the material provisions of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, virtually nugatory. I am also unable to locate any provision in the section itself which either in terms or by necessary implication bars an application for anticipatory bail in respect of crimes committed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. I am therefore of the view that the petitioners can maintain applications under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for the offences committed under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor next contended that the petitioners in addition to the limitations imposed by section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, must make out a special case for the exercise of power to grant anticipatory bail and that mere general allegations of mala fide in the petition are inadequate. It is no doubt true that the Full Bench ruling of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab1 lays down that the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the allegation of mala fide, should be more substantial and the accusation should appear to be false and groundless. The object of introducing a provision for anticipatory bail and the advisability of granting such bail can be seen from the 41st report of the Law Commission. The Report runs thus: “The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false causes for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. The Report runs thus: “The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false causes for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence, is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.” It is therefore clear from these observations of the Commission that one of the categories of cases for the grant of anticipatory bail is the one where there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail. In the present case, the offences are under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Some are for possession or transport of prohibited liquor. It has not been argued on behalf of the State that the petitioners are likely to abscond or otherwise misuse their liberty while on bail. It is no doubt true that the petitions contain only general allegations which are usually made for grant of bail under section 437, Criminal Procedure Code. It is no doubt true that they are not sufficient; but taking into account the nature of the offence committed and the fact that all the petitioners except the petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4059 of 1979 are first offenders. I am of the view that the petitioners except the petitioner in Criminal M.P.No. 4059 of 1979 can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly all the petitions except petition No. 4059 of 1979 are allowed. Criminal M.P. No. 4059 of 1979 is dismissed. 3. The petitioner in Criminal M. P. No. 4029 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. Accordingly all the petitions except petition No. 4059 of 1979 are allowed. Criminal M.P. No. 4059 of 1979 is dismissed. 3. The petitioner in Criminal M. P. No. 4029 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Madhuranthagam, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur. 4. The petitioner in Criminal M. P. No. 4060 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs.1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Station House Officer, Padalam. 5. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4083 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Station House Officer, Padalam Police Station. 6. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4092 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 6. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4092 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the R. 5 Choolaimedu Police Station. 7. The petitioner in Criminal M.P.No. 4093 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 2, Saidapet, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the attesting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palavanthangal Police Station. 8. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4117 of 1979 in the event of arrest, will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vellore, North Arcot District, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paradarami Police Station, North Arcot District. 9. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4118 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 9. The petitioner in Criminal M.P. No. 4118 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vellore, North Arcot District, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Paradarami Police Station, North Arcot District. 10. The petitioner in Criminal M. P. No. 4119 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a band for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram. 11. The petitioner, in Criminal M. P. No. 4179 of 1979 in the event of arrest will be released on bail on his furnishing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamalle, and subject to the condition that the petitioner will make himself available to the arresting authority as and when required for interrogation and the petitioner will not directly or indirectly interfere with any enquiry or investigation against him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act or any other law and that the petitioner will report himself once a day before 6 p.m. before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pallavaram. Index Yes/No. S.J. ----- Crl. M.P. No. 4059 of 1979 dismissed; Other petitions allowed.