JUDGMENT 1. - These three second bail petitions lend themselves support to disposal by a common order; having been filed by the petitioners, named herein below, on some fresh grounds:- 1. Cr. 2nd Misc. Bail Petition No. 2431/89 Prem Chand Agrawal, Shailesh Kumar, Dr. Phool Krishna, Tekchand Chiman Lal, Jagdish Chandra Malhotra & Mulkh Raj Gupta. 2. Cr. 2nd Misc. Bail Petition No. 2429/89 K.R. Sharma, Dr. Sudhir Krishan and Anil Kumar Sood. 3. Cr. 2nd Misc. Bail Petition No. 2432/89 Madan Gopal Todi, Satya Narain, Shib Kumar, Kishan Lal, Arun Kumar, Sashikumar, Ravi Kant & Dinesh Kumar. 2. First plank of his contentions made by Shri S.R. Bajwa, expertise in legal gimmicks, is that under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short, 'the Act'), Central Government is authorised to issue only such orders as are mentioned in that Section; and the Cement (Quality Control) Order, 1962 (for brevity, 'Control Order, 1962'), is not covered by the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act. In Section 3 of the Act, there is nothing to suggest that the manufactured cement should be not only of the prescribed standards but also should bear ISI certification, Shri Bajwa added. 3. Shri K.N. Shrimal, learned Public Prosecutor urged that notification No. 3594, dated 24.11.1962 is covered by Section 2(a) (ix) of the Act, and by this notification, 'cement' is declared as essential commodity; and the notification, is, therefore, covered by Section 3(1) & (2) (a) of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that it is not essential for the prosecution to establish mens rea. 4. Second limb of the arguments on behalf of the petitioners is that Cement Control Order, 1962 has been challenged in a writ petition wherein the petitioners have been authorised to manufacture cement without any ISI certification by grant of stay order assuming that certification Is not necessary. That apart, according to Shri Bajwa, the department, itself, did not feel it necessary that the ISI certification is a condition precedent and that is why, the department, itself, gave exemption to the petitioners and allowed them to manufacture the cement without any ISI certification. In this regard, Shri Bajwa produced orders of exemption which relates to some of the petitioners. 5. In this regard, Shri Bajwa produced orders of exemption which relates to some of the petitioners. 5. Last plank of attack during the course of arguments by Bajwa was that in case the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, the investigation will not hamper because their presence is not at all required for investigation; and that apart, the petitioners are residing for away from the factory wheres the cement has been manufacturing. Shri Bajwa then added that the petitioners are not apprehended for a long time which shows that the investigating agency has been reluctant to apprehended them. 6. On bestowing my earnest consideration to the arguments of the parties, I find that the points raised in these petitions by the learned counsel for the petitioners have neither been urged nor decided by this Court at the time of disposal of earlier petitions. I have perused various orders of the department whereby exemption from ISI certification has been granted to some of the petitioners for manufacturing the cement. Learned Public Prosecutor could not give any explanation for issuance of these exemptions. And un-disputedly, the writ petition is pending wherein validity of the orders is under challenge and in a writ petition filed by one of the petitioners the Court permitted the petitioners to manufacture cement without obtaining ISI certification. However, at this stage. I do not want to express any opinion about the said order passed by this Court in writ petition of one of the petitioners so along on the orders passed by the department granting exemption from ISI certification to the petitioners for manufacturing cement. But, these circumstances are sufficient to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, named above, in the first para of this order. 7. For the reasons stated (ut supra), I allow these bail petitions. All the petitioners, named at the very threshold of this Order, are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in F. I. R. No. 84/89, 80/89 & 78/89, police station Behror, District Alwar provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O./Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station Behror, on the following conditions:- (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners 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; and (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail Petition allowed. *******