MOHINI KAPUR, J.— This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Saraf Synthetics (Rajasthan) Ltd. This Company has its factory at Alwar. On 4th October, 1988, the Central Vigillance Team of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board has conducted a surprise search and found that the Company was stealing electricity by inserting a copper wire into the trivector meter by pressing the meter glass and thereby stopping the KWh meter. This inspection was carried by Shri G.D. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, who was accompanied by Deputy Superintendent of Police, and other members of the team. Shri N.K. Tyagi, who was Electrical Engineer in the said Company was present at the time of the inspection and his statement was recorded and thereafter the meter was seized. On account of the information given by Mr. Tyagi, the present accused, who is Managing Director has the apprehension that he might be arrested in the case and therefore he moved this application. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Tyagi was arrested and has been released on bail, 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that this petitioner is a Managing Director of the Company living at Delhi and besides him there are other Directors and Chairman of the Company, but the day to day affairs of the Company are looked after by the Chief Executive, who at the relevant time was Shri A. C. Roongta. According to the petitioner he has no interference in the day to day affairs of the company as his function is to implement the decisions of the Board of Directors and for this purpose he visits Alwar, at an average of not more than twice a month. It has also been pointed out that Shri Tyagi who stated something involving other persons, was given a notice to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated, replied that he was forced to make certain admissions and to sign some half written papers. It has been contended that the petitioner cannot be found to be guilty merely because Mr. Tyagi has said something against him. 3. It has been contended that the petitioner cannot be found to be guilty merely because Mr. Tyagi has said something against him. 3. It has also been pointed out that the dispute about electricity dues was pending between the Company and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, and the Company had challenged the demand of dues raised by the R.S.E.B, in a writ petition, wherein recovery was stayed and the petitioner Company was directed to file an appeal before the Chief Engineer. The Company approached the Supreme Court and from there also a direction was issued to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- and the recovery of further amount was stayed. The Chief Engineer was to decide the appeal. 4. After the surprise checking on 4th October, 1988 the electricity supply of the company was stopped and another writ petition was filed against the order, which the Chief Engineer of R.S.E.B. had passed in the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the role of the Managing Director of the Company he cannot be held liable for any theft of electricity and more so there is no occasion for keeping him in detention when the matter has been investigated and the facts have been brought to light. According to him the Electrical Engineer was already arrested. The meter said to have been tampered with has been seized and the arrest of the petitioner cannot be necessary for proceeding further. It may be stated that arguments have also been advanced to show that it was not possible to insert a copper wire through the glass window and stop the running of the meter. It has also been contended that by stopping one disc alone the meter could not be stopped and more over the stopping of the disc could not be done on and off so as to allow the meter to run at some time and stop at another time: This would have meant the inserting of wire on and off, which cannot be said to be practical. It is not the case of the R.S.E.B. that the Company was not paying the electricity charges at all, because the meter was not running. On the contrary the Company was paying 3 to 4 lacs as electrical charges every month and this could have been possible only if the meter was stopped for a few hours every day. 6. It is not the case of the R.S.E.B. that the Company was not paying the electricity charges at all, because the meter was not running. On the contrary the Company was paying 3 to 4 lacs as electrical charges every month and this could have been possible only if the meter was stopped for a few hours every day. 6. The application has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the State as well as the R.S.E.B. Trivector meter was also produced for purposes of demonstration as to how the running of the meter could be stopped by inserting a wire to stop the disc. However, from the meter it could only be explained as to what was the function of the three discs and meter, but at the same time, it appears from the meter that it was difficult to insert wire by pressing the glass window to make place for the wire to enter and then to land at proper place to stop the disc which was registering the units of consumption. It is expected that the meter, which has been seized would be examined either by the Court or by some expert in order to find out whether a wire could be inserted by pressing the glass in order to stop the disc. Any opinion by this court at this stage could be prejudicial to either party. I would not like to embark upon giving a finding or making observation in this matter. 7. The case of the petitioner is to be decided in the light of the circumstances of the case. The dispute about demand of electricity charges was also pending between the parties. At the time the surprise inspection was conducted this petitioner was not present. He was not supervising the day to day work of the Company, as for this purpose there is a Chief Executive. He is not likely to abscond if he is allowed to be released on bail. The person who could he said to be directly connected with the stoppage of the meter was arrested and released on bail. The arrest of petitioner cannot be said to be necessary for the purpose of investigating the case. He is not likely to abscond if he is allowed to be released on bail. The person who could he said to be directly connected with the stoppage of the meter was arrested and released on bail. The arrest of petitioner cannot be said to be necessary for the purpose of investigating the case. The apprehension that he might be arrested in the mind of the petitioner is not baseless and when it can be said that the reason for seeking the arrest of the petitioner may be more than the ostensible reason then it would be appropriate to issue a direction under section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station, M.I.A. Alwar, in FIR No; 173 of 1988, is, therefore, directed that in event of arrest of petitioner Narain Das Saraf, he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to his satisfaction, on the following conditions : (a) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any induce-ment, 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 (c) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permi-ssion of the court.