JUDGMENT 1. - This order will deal with the three miscellaneous applications listed above. 2. Modern Syntex (India) Ltd.Jaipur (hereinafter called the company) lodged an F.I.R. with the Alwar police on May 10, 1981, complaining that Swaranjit Jain, Rajbhushan Jain, Manak Chand lain and Dharamveer Jain who are carrying on their business at Ludhiana as partners in the name and styles of Manak Trading Company, Swaran Woolen Mills and Ladla Knitwear and who were agents of the company at Ludhiana committed the offences of Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, using as genuine forged documents and criminal conspiracy in respect of goods of the Company of the value of Rs.55 lakh. The Alwar police registered a case under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Apprehending their arrest by the Alwar police in the aforementioned case, the accused applied for and obtained from the court (Agarwal J.) orders under section 438 Cr.P.C. on June 15, 1981, to the affect that in the event of their arrests, they may be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O./Arresting Officer of Police Station, Sadar, Alwar. One of the conditions of the bonds, as prescribed by the Court, is that the accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 4. On July 10,1981, the Company made an application to this court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused on the allegations, inter alia, that they had failed to present themselves before the investigating officer for interrogation, that they had broken the seals and locks placed by the police on the house, shops and godowns of M/S R.K. Oswal Ludhiana and illegally removed from there goods worth ten Lakh, that they had instigated the Yarn Trade Union Ludhiana to obstruct the investigating police officials from checking the bank go downs at Ludhiana, and that they are causing impediments to and thus making difficult the recovery of stolen property. 5. Subsequently on August 3,1981, the Public Prosecutor also filed two applications almost identical in contents, for cancellation of the anticipatory bail, one in respect of accused Swaranjit and the other in respect of accused Raj Bhushan, Manak Chand and Dharamveer. 5. Subsequently on August 3,1981, the Public Prosecutor also filed two applications almost identical in contents, for cancellation of the anticipatory bail, one in respect of accused Swaranjit and the other in respect of accused Raj Bhushan, Manak Chand and Dharamveer. It is alleged in these applications that the investigating officer visited Ludhiana on May 19,1981, seized some of the stolen goods lying in the godowns, shops and houses at Ludhiana, prepared their inventories and put the seized goods under his own lock and key in the presence of respectable persons. It is further alleged that on his visit to Ludhiana on and from June 20,1981, the investigating officer discovered that the locks had been broken and seized goods removed from the sealed places mentioned above. The investigating officer got a case registered with the Ludhiana police regarding the alleged breaking open of the locks and the theft of the seized goods from the premises sealed by him earlier. The public prosecutor further alleged that the accused had made themselves scarce with the result that he was unable to arrest them till August 3, 1981. He mentioned in this context that inspite of a registered notice sent to the accused requiring them to present themselves before him at Alwar on July 6 and 9, 1981, they did not comply and instead sent telegrams expressing their inability to appear on the appointed date. 6. Notice of all the three applications was issued to the accused-respondents. They entered appearance through their counsel and filed written replies to these applications. They denied that they had made themselves scarce. They pleaded that they had appeared before the investigating officer at Ludhiana taking their lawyer, Shri S.K. Sehgal Advocate, with them on June 24 and again on June 25,1981 and had requested the said officer to accept bail-bonds in compliance with the order of this Court obtained by them on June 15,1981. According to them, the investigating officer did not accept the bail-bonds, as offered, and instead kept putting them off on one pretext or the other. Their allegation is that the said officer was acting in a calculated manner so as to create some ground for cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail. They denied that they had broken the locks of the premises sealed by the investigating officer at Ludhiana, and removed the seized goods from there. Their allegation is that the said officer was acting in a calculated manner so as to create some ground for cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail. They denied that they had broken the locks of the premises sealed by the investigating officer at Ludhiana, and removed the seized goods from there. As for their non-appearance before the investigating officer at Alwar on July 6 and 9, 1981 they pleaded that the notices sent by mail were received by them as late as July 7, 1981 and that their lawyer had already requested the investigating officer on their behalf to fix some other date for the purpose. They further pleaded that after the notices received by them by mail on July 7,1981, they did not receive any other communication from the investigating officer regarding their appearance before him on any other date. They denied that by their non-appearance before the investigating officer at Alwar they had committed any breach of the terms of the order of anticipatory bail granted by this Court. According to them, the occasion for them to furnish bail-bonds in terms of the said order did not arise because the investigating officer had not arrested them inspite of their presenting themselves for such arrest before him at Ludhiana on June 24, and 25, 1981. They prayed in this context that since the investigating officer had threatened them and their prospective sureties that "they will be seen and arrested whenever they come to Alwar". He may be directed to arrest them and accept their bail-bonds at Ludhiana. They denied that they had instigated the Yard Trade Union Ludhiana to obstruct the investigation. 7. After hearing counsel for the Company, Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for the accused-respondents. I am of opinion that the three applications made for an order cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused-respondents by Agrawal J. on 15,1981, are wholly misconceived and entirely misdirected. The complainant in this case, that is the Company, and the Public Prosecutor, do seem to have some basis for their allegation that after obtaining the order of anticipatory bail from this Court on June 15, the accused-respondents made themselves scarce and therefore could not be arrested till the time when these applications were filed. The complainant in this case, that is the Company, and the Public Prosecutor, do seem to have some basis for their allegation that after obtaining the order of anticipatory bail from this Court on June 15, the accused-respondents made themselves scarce and therefore could not be arrested till the time when these applications were filed. If the investigating officer was convinced that the accused were concealing themselves to avoid arrest, he had a number of options available to him to compel the accused to submit to his custody. He could, for example, apply for and obtain from the magistrate concerned bailable warrants of arrest in conformity with the direction of this court made in its order dated, June 15,1981; and in the event of such warrant remaining unexecuted due to the abscondence of the accused, he could take recourse to the provisions of sections 82,83 and 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for compelling the accused to appear before him. Another course open to the investigating officer was to apply directly to this court for a direction to the accused to appear before him. After hearing arguments and during the period when this order was in the process of making this court suo motu issued such a direction to the accused respondents through their counsel requiring them to enter appearance in this Court. They promptly complied and appeared in this Court on November 18,1981. The investigating officer has since arrested them and released them on bail in compliance with the order of this Court dated, June 15,1981. It will be seen from the said order that the conditions specified therein including the condition that the accused shall make themselves available to the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required, could not possibly come into operation unless and until the accused had been actually arrested and thereafter executed the required bail-bonds to secure their release. Since the accused had not been arrested and they had not executed the requisite bail-bonds till November 19,1981, it would be wholly fallacious to accuse them of having violated the conditions of the bail order before November 19. 8. Since the accused had not been arrested and they had not executed the requisite bail-bonds till November 19,1981, it would be wholly fallacious to accuse them of having violated the conditions of the bail order before November 19. 8. It will appear from the foregoing discussion that as on the date of filing of the three applications, there was no good reason for cancellation of the order dated, June 15, 1981, whereby a direction had been issued that in the event of their arrest the accused shall be released on bail. The three applications are therefore dismissed.Application Dismissed. *******