JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a driver after trial by the competent authority of the State Roadways. He further submits that his arrest is not required for the purpose of investigation and that his service has already been terminated on the ground of submitting false certificate. 3. Contrary to this, the learned public prosecutor submits that the original certificate has to be recovered from the petitioner as only a photo-copy was submitted by him in the department at the time of seeking employment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgment of this Court in S. B. Cr. Mis. Bail Application No. 1860/86, Dinesh Kumar and others v. State 1986 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 661 . I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival contentions. I am seeing that these days a practice is developing in the society in fabricating certificates/mark-sheets in order to get employment or admission. It is necessary to curb these malpractices which has a growing tendency in these days. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not obtained employment on the basis of certificate which has been subsequently found to be fabricated one. I am not inclined to grant benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner may surrender himself before the competent court and may move an application under Section 437/439 Cr. P. C. If he does so, it is expected to the said court to decide the application as early as possible. *******