JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and also perused the case-diary as well as the order of the learned trial court. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is said to have taken place from 10th July to 13th Oct., 1986, and the FIR in respect of the same was lodged under Section 161, Cr.PC, it comes out that account was to be given every month for the ticket-books issued to him. It is alleged that no account was given by the petitioner for the whole above period and the matter came into light only when audit-report was received. 3. I fail to understand as to how fresh ticket-books were issued every time when no account for the ticket-books issued earlier, was given by the petitioner, as was required under the procedure of the Corporation, as stated by Satya Narain, in his statement, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC. Evidently, no fresh tickets could be issued to the petitioner, unless account was given by him for the earlier tickets issued to him. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, PS - Nayapura, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Sohanlal, in FIR No. 138/87, registered at that police station, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, give 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; and (iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Anticipatory bail granted. *******