JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Accused of offences punishable under sections 332 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners seek an order of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') after unsuccessfully moving the Court of Session. Of the two offences, the offence punishable u/s 332 is available while the other is not. 2. Mr. Mohanty has urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is no case against the petitioners and it is a fit case in which an order for anticipatory bail should be passed. The learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the application. He has, however, submitted that the petitioners may not have any apprehension that on their arrest, they will be harassed and humiliated by the arresting authority. 3. As observed in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others Vs. State of Punjab the High Court and the Court of Session are to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. Similarly, they must be left free to refuse bail if the circumstances of the case so warrant, on considerations similar to those mentioned in section 437 or which are generally considered to be relevant u/s 439 of the code. There is, however, no warrant for reading into section 438 the conditions subject to which bail can be granted u/s 437(1) of the Code The High Court and the Court of Sessions should exercise their jurisdiction u/s 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion and by acting objectively and in consonance with the principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years. It should be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty. It is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. When an application for anticipatory bail is made, the Court is to apply its mind and decide as to whether a case has been made out for granting such a relief. 4. It is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. When an application for anticipatory bail is made, the Court is to apply its mind and decide as to whether a case has been made out for granting such a relief. 4. The case against the petitioners is that on August 20, 1985, the Inspector of Police (Vigilance), who has lodged the first information report along with the Additional Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance), Inspector Tarafdar Sub Inspector Sahu and some other officials including two Police Constables arrived at village Ladugaon under the direction of the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Barhampur, to conduct raids for the purpose of detection of tax evasion. They went to the business premises of M/s Jagadish prasad Agarwal and searched for and recovered some duplicate accounts and other papers relating to tax evasion. The petitioners attempted to snatch away the duplicate accounts from the hands of the Sub-Inspector Sahu forcibly when the duplicate accounts were being sub mined after their seizure along with the regular account books. The petitioner Kundanlal attempted to snatch away the account books from the hands of the Sales Tax Inspector being assisted by his younger brother and nephew Jugal Kishore Agarwal (petitioner). In the meantime, the petitioner Prahallad called out persons to come and help them. The petitioners Nandakishore and Ramabatar and others entered the business premises and manhandled the Sales Tax Inspector causing bleeding injuries on his person. They pushed the first informant and Inspector tarafdar. The petitioner Kudanlal snatched away the duplicate account book and the stock list and handed them over to the petitioner Nandkishore. When the inspector of Police and a Police Constable tried to Prevent this action, the petitioner Nandakishore assaulted and pushed them with the help of others and ran away with the papers. The petitioners have been implicated in the report and in the course of investigation when some officials were discharging their duties as public servants, the Petitioners took law into their own hand, and forcibly assaulated them and took away the papers from the custody of the officials. It may not appropriately said at this stage that a false case has been foisted against Their actions were certainly highhanded. 5. It has been observed by this Court in 59 Mohan Behera and Others Vs. It may not appropriately said at this stage that a false case has been foisted against Their actions were certainly highhanded. 5. It has been observed by this Court in 59 Mohan Behera and Others Vs. State of Orissa that the provision relating to anticipatory bail has not been made to help persons accused of commission of grave and heinous offences avoiding their arrest. Regard being had to the nature of the case and the actions of the petitioners, it would not be a fit case. in my view, to exercise the discretion in favour of such culprits and make an order for anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed.