I.S. ISRANI, J.—This is an application under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr. case No. 340/86 pending trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, Jaipur, under Sec. 276 C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. A complaint u/s 276 C, 276 CC and 277 of the Act was filed in the Court of C.J.M. (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, Jaipur by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circile-II against the petitioner Learned C.J.M. under his order took cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of non-bailable warrant so as to effect attendance of the petitioner to face trial. Apprehending his arrest, a petition was moved in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur u/s 438 Cr.P.C., which was rejected by order dated December 8, 1986. 3. Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that a search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 12.5.81 and cash amounting to Rs. 96,838/- and ornaments valued by the Department at Rs. 48,905/- were found and according to the Department, the petitioner could not explain the source. It is also pointed out that so far as the amount of jewellery is concerned, its value keeps on rising by passage of time and the valuation put up by the Department is exaggerated. It is also pointed out that some jewellery has been showed to be owned substantively by the wife of the petitioner, but protectively has also been added to the ownership of the petitioner and it has been stated that the same jewellery cannot be taken to belong to two parties. Learned counsel, therefore, points out that under the provisions of Sec. 276 C (1) (i) of the Act, it is provided that if the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-the imprisonment for a term shall not be less than 6 months, but may extend to 7 years and fine and under sub-clause (i) in any other case, the term of imprisonment shall not be less than 3 months, but may extend to 3 years with fine. He has, therefore, stressed that the offence, if any proved against the petitioner shall be covered by the later part of Sec. 276 C (ii) of the Act. He has, therefore, stressed that the offence, if any proved against the petitioner shall be covered by the later part of Sec. 276 C (ii) of the Act. Learned counsel further points out that the total tax required to be paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,43,829/- which has been paid and the original receipts were produced in the court. It has been further pointed out that this tax amount has been paid even though an appeal against the summary order passed by the learned I.T.O. has been filed, which is still pending. The objections u/s 132 (ii) of the Act have also been filed and several reminders to decide the same have been sent to the Department, but with no effect and the objections are still pending. He has pointed out that the petitioner is a respectable person and is not involved in any criminal case and has no conviction to his discredit. 4. Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the Department, has on the other hand stressed that apart from the proceedings u/s 276 C and 276 CC, proceedings u/s 277 have also been initiated against the petitioner. He has also pointed out that the matter of foreign exchange of recovery of certain amount of Liras is also involved against the petitioner. The value of Liras in Indian currency, according to the learned counsel, is about Rs. 10/-. Learned counsel has stressed that the petitioner keeps on going out of India frequently and may not be available to the Department, if required at any time. He has drawn my attention to the case of Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (1). This was a case regarding anticipatory bail moved by a person, who was accused of committing murder by fire-arms. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that in such cases the courts approach should be cautious and relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail in such cases differ from those for granting other kind of bails. In this case, the anticipatory bail granted by this court was cancelled. He has also drawn my attention to the case of State, through the Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, New Delhi Vs. Jaspal Singh Gil (2). This was the case relating to the offence of passing on defence secrets to foreign agency which was punishable under the Official Secrets Act. He has also drawn my attention to the case of State, through the Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, New Delhi Vs. Jaspal Singh Gil (2). This was the case relating to the offence of passing on defence secrets to foreign agency which was punishable under the Official Secrets Act. The bail application made by the accused respondents during the investigation was rejected by the trial court. In this case bail granted by the High Court was cancelled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 5. Both the above cases cited by the learned counsel for the Department are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. One is regarding anticipatory bail in the matter involving murder and other involving Secrets of defence of the country. 6. In the case of Gur Bux Singh Siba Vs. State of Punjab (3), a special constitutional bench was constituted to consider the matter of anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. It was observed by their Lordships that powers regarding anticipatory bail can be used to save a person from being injured and humiliated by arrest. On the other hand, if it appears that considering the antecedents of the applicant, that he may take advantage of order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such order would not be made. It was further observed that it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala-fides. My attention has been drawn to the decision in Ram Ratan Dhamani v. State of Raj.(4) which was also regarding search conducted by the Income tax Department. The search was conducted in May 1983 and the cognizance of the offence was taken on the complaint in 1986. This court thought it proper to grant anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. 7. So far as the antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, there are no other criminal cases said to be pending against the petitioner. The offence under Sec. 276 C, u/s 276 CC is such of which cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only when a complaint is filed by the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is cognizable offence as it requires a complaint to be filed by the Department before the Magistrate can take cognizance of the same. The offence under Sec. 276 C, u/s 276 CC is such of which cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate only when a complaint is filed by the Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is cognizable offence as it requires a complaint to be filed by the Department before the Magistrate can take cognizance of the same. The search was conducted as far back as 1981 and the complaint was filed on 12.9.85 and the arrest is sought to be made in December, 1986. The petitioner is a citizen of Jaipur and was available for all this time for any enjuiry to the Department. Therefore, there is nothing further to be enquired from him as the complaint has already been filed. He has also filed objections against the summary order under Sec. 311 of the Act, which have not been decided even till today. An appeal has also been filed against the summary order which is still pending. The second appeal is also provided under the Act which can be filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the whole matter is sub-judice. Apart from this, the total amount of tax as required by the Department has also been deposited by the petitioner. Keeping in view the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court regarding grant of anticipatory bail in the case of Gurubux Singh (Supra), I am inclined to accept the bail application of the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C. 8. It is, therefore, directed that accused petitioner Prahlad Rai Saraf shall be released on bail in case No. 340/- 86 pending trial in the court of C.J.M (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, Jaipur, u/s 276 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 15000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, with the following conditions: (1) he shall make himself available for interrogation by Department as and when required; (2) he 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/Depart-meni; (3) he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. The arrest warrant issued by the court is altered to the bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-.