JUDGMENT P. Dayal, J. - All these four petitions have been presented before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the first information report relating to Case Crime No. 1221 of 1984 registered at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow under Section 420/424/468/477-A/120-B, I.P.C. read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has also been prayed that arrest of the petitioners be stayed during the pendency of these petitions in this Court. This Court had stayed the arrest after issuing notices to the Government Advocate. Today all these petitions came up for final disposal. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the investigating agency on the basis of the first information report are intending to arrest the petitioners in order to cause mental and physical harassment. It may be observed that in every case whenever a person is to be arrested there is harassment and, therefore, such a ground cannot be entertained for purposes of admitting the petitioners to bail or for staying their arrest during the pendency of investigation. It may, however, be observed that in the instant case the first information report which has been brought to the notice of the Court, has been handed over for the investigation to the C.B., C.I.D. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that on the reading of the first information report, no case of criminal nature is made out. It would not be proper for this Court to record any finding to this effect. The purpose of the first information report is only to set the investigating agency into motion and so it cannot be an encyclopedia of entire facts. The case is still under investigation. I however, refrain from making any further observation on merits. Learned counsels for the petitioners have not pressed these petitions, but solely stressed that assuming if the case is made out, the petitioners would be entitled to bail. On the other hand learned counsel for the state pointed out that some of these petitioners are being prosecuted in an almost similar type of offence before the Special Judge and that case was also investigated by C.B.I. and it has also been stated that in that case in which the trial is going on the accused persons have been admitted to bail. In cases of embezzlement bail should not as a matter of course be denied unless, there is an apprehension that the accused will tamper with the prosecution evidence or is likely to slip away from the hands of the prosecuting agency. For this, in my opinion, the Court granting bail, can ensure by imposing heavy sureties and placing restrictions in the order. The investigation in the instant case, admittedly is pending and I do not think that it is appropriate to interfere with the investigation merely on bald reading of the first information report. At the same time I am also of the view that people should not merely be harassed at the hands of the investigating agency as the persons involved in embezzlement cases suffer from different mentality than the persons involved in heinous offences of murder and dacoities etc. Some times allurement of money also comes into play on account of which people of high status are also involved in such cases. However, status is not of much consequence so far as criminal cases are concerned. The Constitution envisages equality before law. On giving my anxious consideration to the entire fact and circumstances and by reason of facts that some of the accused who are involved in the instant case are facing trial and are on bail, I direct that in case the petitioners appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow the learned Judge in the light of observations made above would exercise his discretion for granting bail. With these observations these petitions are finally disposed off. Interim orders are vacated. Copies of this order may be issued to the learned counsels for the petitioners by tomorrow on payment of necessary charges. Copy may also be issued to the Government Advocate by tomorrow.