C. SHIVAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is under Section 438, Cr. P. C. by the petitioner seeking for anticipatory bail. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 12 on a complaint filed by the otherof the deceased by name Chamba Bai to the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga alleging that her son was taken to custody by Veerabhadrappa, A. S. I. attached to chowk Police Station, Gulbarga, at the instance of one B. N. Patil and he was detained in the lockup, and later shifted and entrusted to the custody of the present petitioner who was working at "station Bazaar Police Station", Gulbarga. It is the case of the complainant that the deceased Kamalakar was illegally detained in both at Chowk Police Station and Bazaar Police Station from 16-5-1992 to 19-6-1992. During that period he was subjected to severe torture in the sense, brutally assaulting him. Ultimately, he breathed his last in police custody on 9-7-1992 at 3. 30 p. m. at station Bazaar Police Station, Gulbarga. ( 3 ) AMONG these accused, A-11 to A-14 are police officers. A-11 is the A. S. I. , A-12 is the petitioner, A-13 and A-14 are police constables. Now the petitioner is under suspension. ( 4 ) THE Superintendent of Police directed the Additional Superintendent of Policeto take up the investigation and a case was earlier registered in Crime No. 132 of 1992 under Section 342, IPC and thereafter the case papers were handed over to the additional Superintendent of Police. It is still under investigation. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner (A-12) and his accomplices to screen themselves from legal consequences carried the dead body from the police station and disposed it of with the intention to screen the evidence of death. Thus a case was registered against 15 persons under Sections 342, 344, 365, 506, 302 read with Section 120-B,ipc. ( 5 ) THE petitioner approached the Court of Session seeking anticipatory bail andthe same was rejected on 25-7-1992. He has now renewed his pra yer for anticipa lory bail before this court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is inordinate andunexplained delay in recording the statements of witnesses and the version of the witnesses is improbable. He has now renewed his pra yer for anticipa lory bail before this court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is inordinate andunexplained delay in recording the statements of witnesses and the version of the witnesses is improbable. Since the cause of death is not known, there is no material to implicate the petitioner and his conduct in approaching his superior officers is in conformity with his innocence and he being a police officer will not flee from justice. He further contended that he may be harassed at the hands of the C. O. D. police who are acting at the instance of the political leaders and higher-ups in the department to implicate him. He contended that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and he will abide by all the conditions that may be put by this court. Since he is holding responsible post, the question of fleeing from justice docs not arise. ( 7 ) RESISTING these contentions the learned Advocate-General contended that thepetitioner is still absconding, though he has moved the Court of Session for anticipatory bail and filed this petition before this court. His conduct is not not conducive to the position he holds as a Police Officer. He also contended that the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner being heinous. There are materials to show" that the deceased Kamalakar was detained in the police station to which the petitioner was in-charge and he was shifted in a jeep by the petitioner with the assistance of bis fellow officers and the manner in which the deceased was tortured by using third degree methods, as a result of which he died has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the citizens in the locality and therefore release of a person accused of such heinous crime will deter persons who had knowledge of the offence to come forward to assist the investigation and that amounts to making inroads to the investigation he contended that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory ( 8 ) GRANT or refusal of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. depends uponthe nature of crime, the weapon used for the offence, the position of the accused, the method adopted to achieve the object intended and, the consequence of the release, namely, whether it hampers public justice resulting 'in tampering with the prosecution witnesses and the things to be collected or recovered and chance of fleeing from justice creating obstacles to the investigation. resulting in delay in investigation and danger to his own life and other consequences. Theses are the criteria, to the borne criteria,to be borne in mind while exercising the discretion either for granting or refusing the ball. ( 9 ) IT is true indiscreet rejection of bail affects is the liberty of a citinzens whch is aprecious jewel in the Constitution and courts are meants to protect the liberty of the citizen which is bis fundamental right. But the liberty is always subject to promoting the well-being and orderly societyand not at the cost of the. life and liberty of the other fellow citizens. Resorting to intentional criminal acts virtually. ainounts to interference with the liberty of the life of the fellow citizens and upsetting the soceity the social order and subjecting the dependents of the victim of the. crime to serious misery throughout their life. Therefore, an indiscriminate grant as well as indiscriminate refusal, both arc uncalled for to secure an orderly society and to make them feel secure their life and liberty The court has to balance with circumspection the circumstances under which discretion can be exercised. Both sides invited my attention to several decisions of various courts including the Supreme Court. The considerations which are relevant for the grant of bail after arrest are also same in regard to grant of anticipatory bail. Those considerations are mentioned in (1) The State v captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 and (2) The State (Through Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Delhi) vjaspalsingh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 . The considerations which are relevant for the grant of bail after arrest are also same in regard to grant of anticipatory bail. Those considerations are mentioned in (1) The State v captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 and (2) The State (Through Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Delhi) vjaspalsingh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 . In AIR 1984 SC 1503 the Supreme Court mentioned the considerations as under:"the court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. "in V. Nandanan v DIG of Police (Crime), Hyderabad and Another, 1986 criminal Law Journal 1052 the Kerala High Court has taken the view that"while granting anticipatory bail the court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. The court has to see that investigation is the province of the police and an order for anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the investigational powers of the police. " ( 10 ) COMING to the case on hand, whether this is a fit case to grant anticipatorybail, a passing reference to the few facts of this case are necessary. The deceased was in the police station to which the present petitioner was in-charge as a Sub-Inspector of Police. No doubt when a person was brought on an accusation or on a complaint or on suspicion before a Police Officer, he has got a duty to interrogate such person. But that does not mean that that person should be subjected to barbaric treatment and brutal assault applying third degree methods. The materials collected disclose that the deceased Kamalakar was assaulted putting a club between his legs, tying his legs. He had bleeding injuries. Being a responsible Police Officer, the petitioner ought to have taken precautions to prevent such third degree methods. After all, the allegation on which he was taken to Chowk Police Station was theft of certain pipes. The materials collected disclose that the deceased Kamalakar was assaulted putting a club between his legs, tying his legs. He had bleeding injuries. Being a responsible Police Officer, the petitioner ought to have taken precautions to prevent such third degree methods. After all, the allegation on which he was taken to Chowk Police Station was theft of certain pipes. This is a matter to be enquired into and if investigation disclosed any offence, to place a charge sheet so that law can take its course. Having regard to the accusation which led accused No. 11 to take him to custody and after torturing him, shifting to the station Bazaar Police Station is something which speaks of tossing the deceased from one station to the other. The other aspect of the case is when the fact of death was reported to the present petitioner he immediately rushed to his superior and back to the Police Station and the body was shifted in the police jeep. So, therefore, consequently the dead body is not available so far. The irresistible inference that can be drawn In such a situation is that he has not only involved in causing the death of the deceased but also caused disappearance of the body of the deceased with the help of his fellow policemen. Taking from the stage when he was entrusted with the custody of the victim, subsequent torture, not preventing it, after knowing the death, removing the body and causing disappearance and his abscondence all put together gives anybody a reasonable belief that the person in detention breathed his last in the lockup, the body was not found hi the place where he breathed his last. These circumstances make the prosecution case probable and reasonable at this stage. When once the prosecution case is taken as responsible and probable, then the question would be whether granting anticipatory bail is conducive to the investigation. ( 11 ) SECTION 438, Cr. P. C. was introduced on the recommendation of the Lawcommission to give protection to those who may be subjected to harassment at the instance of rich and influential persons whenever they try to implicate their opponents in false cases for political and other reasons and try to get them detained by way of harassment. To prevent such harassment, indignity and humiliation, in appropriate cases Section 438, Cr. P. C. has to be invoked. To prevent such harassment, indignity and humiliation, in appropriate cases Section 438, Cr. P. C. has to be invoked. To invoke Section 438, Cr. P. C. premise being an implication of a person with ulterior motive. In the instant case the person breathed his last in the custody of the police lock-up and was last seen in the company of the petitioner, he had caused disappearance of the body by carrying it in his jeep. Therefore, the question of false implication does not arise. ( 12 ) TAMPERING has two aspects. One, preventing the evidence being collectedduring investigation stage and the other preventing such evidence being placed during trial. Having regard to the position of the petitioner, being a Police Officer, he may radiate his influence in both the stages and the offence assumes all the importance and greater magnitude, becomes more heinous in nature when an Officer who has to be custodian and guardian of the life and liberty of the citizens by maintaining law and order has taken the law into his own hands. The petitioner instead of preventing the third degree methods, resorted to screening the evidence by removing the dead body implies his intention. In all cases of conspiracy the intention surfaces after the crime. Therefore, when the case is at the process of investigation, releasing the accused, who is a Police Officer, amounts to making inroads to the investigation, in other words trifling the investigation, the consequences being, it creates a sense of insecurity among the witnesses and in the society. It is impossible that people who have knowledge of the offence may not come forward to give evidence, apprehending untoward consequences in future. The other officers who have to do their duty sincerely may become mere dumb spectators and may prevent them for charging their duties in the manner they are expected of. A psychic fear will instal in their minds and the investigation becomes a formal ritual instead of locating the real cause or real accused behind the crime. Therefore, it will be against public justice. The edifice for all public institutions being the public confidence. The petitioner being a police Officer, his release is not conducive to proper investigation or for trial. Indiscriminate grant of bail either regular or anticipatory may shake the confidence of the public in judicial system. Therefore, it will be against public justice. The edifice for all public institutions being the public confidence. The petitioner being a police Officer, his release is not conducive to proper investigation or for trial. Indiscriminate grant of bail either regular or anticipatory may shake the confidence of the public in judicial system. This view is expressed in Pokar Ram v State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1985 SC 969 . At para 13 the Supreme Court observes thus:"before we conclude this judgment, it must be made distinctly clear that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress. In fact, the Investigating Officer did not even attempt to arrest the appellant though the initial accusation was under Section 307, IPC punishable with imprisonment for life. And as soon as the victim of (he assault succumbed to his injuries and an ffence under Section 302 was registered, promptly an application for anticipatory bail was made and granted. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely, to be considerably shaken. Therefore, we have no option but to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail. "these being the consequences, the court has to be circumspect while passing orders either granting or refusing bail. ( 13 ) NOW I have weighed the prima facie case against the petitioner and the consequences,if he is released and the manner how he may tamper. Therefore, one of the criteria, namely, in the event of granting anticipatory bail whether there will be tampering is answered against the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE other criteria is whether the petitioner will flee from justice. This can beanswered without much discussion because the normal conduct of a Police Officer, when he himself is accused of an offence, is to voluntarily assist the investigating agency to show that he is innocent and make himself available and to show the public at large that he is an upright man, whatever may be the accusation. But, here is a Police Officer from the date of registration of the case, though be was moved the sessions Court for his release, till today absconding. That he will not flee from justice is one of the facts that has to weigh with the court. But, here is a Police Officer from the date of registration of the case, though be was moved the sessions Court for his release, till today absconding. That he will not flee from justice is one of the facts that has to weigh with the court. In the instant case, by his conduct the petitioner has shown that his release will enable him to flee from the clutches of law. If only he had co-operated, by this time the cause of death, location of the body and other things would have been detected. Because of his non-cooperation, the dead body may be decomposed and that part of the material investigation is going to be wiped out. It is not that the dead body is always necessary. The case can be viewed from other circumstantial evidences available in the case. But, in the instant case it is also surprising to note that if he were to be a private person, the police would have somehow located that person tracing his association, normal place of residence, etc. In the instant case, the petitioner and accused Nos. 13 and 14, police Constables, all are absconding. This is something one cannot imagine. There is no reason to come to a conclusion that the petitioner will not flee from justice, if released. Hence the release of the petitioner is not conducive and the petition has to fail. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY the petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an observation be made that the opinion expressed by this court on the merits need not influence the trial court. This need not be expressed because any observation made are confined only to the disposal of the present petition and the trial court will weigh the evidence in accordance with law. --- *** --- .