R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. He was apprehending his arrest in FIR No. 33/1993 registered in P. S. Keshavpuram under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC. ( 2 ) NOTICE of this petition was given and I have heard argumentsadvanced by Mr. D. C. Mathur on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. P. Sharma on behalf of the State. One Naresh Anand registered an FIR withthe allegations that he was running a transport office at Bombay and Delhi. While he himself supervised the office at Delhi, the office at Bombay wasbeing supervised by his father S. L. Anand. On 10. 2. 1993 their managervijay Kumar contacted one broker Deepak Jain attached with Quick Cargomovers and asked him to send goods from Bombay to Delhi. Deepak Jaincame with one driver and said that he was driver of truck No. HR 26a/7162and therefore, the Manager of the firm managed, to load 196 Nugs (Packets) for Delhi in that truck. The relevant documents along with thegoods receipt were allegedly given to the driver. According to informationgiven by his manager on phone the goods should have reached Delhi around14/15-2-1993. He waited upto 17. 2. 1993 but the truck did not reach hisoffice. He enquired about the truck from Gurgaon Authorities and came toknow that the truck number which was mentioned by the driver was actuallyof a two wheeler scooter and, therefore, it appeared that driver had cheatedthem. He then got verified the address of the driver and came to knowthrough some one that the goods were lying in a Warehouse at Lawrenceroad. Delhi. He then made enquiries from the owner of that Warehousewho gave him the name of V. K. Malhotra of Rohini leaving deposited goodswith his transport office at Keshavpuram. Thus he mentioned that the driverand the owner of the truck had cheated him. The petitioner before me isvinod Kumar and there is no dispute that he is the same person as describedas V. K. Malhotra in the complaint. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that out of 196nugs. 179 Nugs had already been delivered to the complainant andpetitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 which may beapproximate value of the alleged 17 Nugs which are alleged to be missing. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that out of 196nugs. 179 Nugs had already been delivered to the complainant andpetitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000. 00 which may beapproximate value of the alleged 17 Nugs which are alleged to be missing. Moreover, he argued that it was not clearly mentioned in the FIR whetherthe offence complained against was under Section 406 or 420 IPC. Even ifit was so punishable under either of the aforesaid Sections of the IPC, theimprisonment being only for 3 years under the aforesaid provision, thepetitioner was entitled to be released on anticipatory bail as a matter of right. He also drew my attention to the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia andothers v. Stale of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 . I have carefully gone throughthis authority. The law on anticipatory bail has been summed up by thesupreme Court in the aforesaid case in para 31 at page 588 as follows : "in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appearsto stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but fromsome ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate theapplicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of theapplicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedentsof the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatorybail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. Thatis to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusationappears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatorybail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant willabscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous toenumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the Courtwhile granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature andseriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likelyto lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility ofthe applicant s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonableapprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the largerinterests of the public or the State" are some of the considerationswhich the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an applicationfor anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations waspointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, wasa case under the Old Section 498 which corresponds to the Presentsection 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration toremember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary forthe survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of theindividual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free entitledto the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit torestraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions whichthe Court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurancethat if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail. " ( 4 ) THUS it is clear that there are several considerations weighing inthe mind of the Court while deciding such applications, the combined effectof which filters in its mind while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. In the present case according to the petitioner s own showing he himselfmade a report on 17. 2. 1993 to the SHO Police Station Keshavpuram in thefollowing words: "my request is that my vehicle had brought certain goodsfrom Bombay on 15. 2. 1993. No bilty or address of the owner ofthe goods was given. On that account we have kept the goodsin the godown of an acquaintance. On checking from Bombayit will be known where these goods are to be given. I havecome to give this information in the police station so that infuture nobody should be able to make a claim from me on accountof the fact that his goods have been stolen. I have heard my statement which is correct. " ( 5 ) IT prime fade appears that this report was made at the policestation as a sort of Peshbandi. Number of the truck was not given inthis report by which the goods were brought. On behalf of the State it hasbeen urged that bilty of the articles along with necessary documents wasgiven to the driver of the truck at Bombay and actually same have beenrecovered from the petitioner on 27. 2. 1993. Therefore, it maybe notedthat awrong allegation was made in the aforesaid report prime fade thatalong with the goods the bilty and other relevant papers were not given todriver. 2. 1993. Therefore, it maybe notedthat awrong allegation was made in the aforesaid report prime fade thatalong with the goods the bilty and other relevant papers were not given todriver. The complainant has also mentioned in the FIR that the numberof the truck HR-26a/7172 as was given at Bombay is actually thenumber of a two wheeler scooter as was discovered by them from Gurgaontransport Authority Office. This fact is also not controverted during thecourse of arguments on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Counsel. Therefore, prime fade, I am of the view that the allegations levelled againstthe petitionner were prime fade neither incorrect nor mala fide nor motivated by any malice. In fact, the complainant had not even known the petitioner before this complaint. The display of a two-wheeler number plate ofa scooter on a truck belonging to the petitioner prima facie indicates theevil designs of the petitioner to grab the goods belonging to the complainant in collusion with his driver. It is indeed very easy to offer the estimatedprice of goods which are still not delivered when the petitioner finds himself pushed to the corner. From the documents of the goods recovered fromhim, it is prima facie clear that the driver of the petitioner as well as thepetitioner knew where the goods were to be delivered. By keeping thesegoods at a different place and by making a false report in the police stationthat the documents of the goods were not given to the driver at Bombay,the evil designs of the petitioner are prima facie clear. No driver of atruck would risk the carrying of the goods on such long distance withoutproper documents because such goods can always be checked by the concerned authorities on the long route. Simply because during the course ofinvestigation part of the packets have been recovered will not afford a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail The allegations against the petitioner are rather serious and it is not appropriate for this Court to standin the way of the proper investigation to find out the complete modusoperandi. If this is not done there is likelihood of many people similarlysituated who can fall into such a trap laid by the petitioner. I, therefore,see (no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail Pelition is dismissed.