JUDGMENT 1. - This second application has been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail. The earlier one was rejected on 14.6.93. This second application has been moved by the petitioner on new facts, which have come to his knowledge. The petitioner has filed a copy of factual statement, prepared by Senior Deputy Accountant General (Works) Rajasthan. From this report, it appears that the Chief Engineer, PHED has placed a supply order with M/s. Amarnath Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Singapore for supply of Carbon Steel in size of 8 mm to 32 mm and plane bars in the size of 6 mm. 2. It was also mentioned in the said report that the aforesaid firm dispatched 1338 bundles of Steel bars weighing 1359.956 tonns. However, when the delivery was taken neither the material was weighted nor the pieces in each bundle were counted and the payment was made to the firm. From the report, it also appears that the bundles of Steel bar were re-arranged and forwarded to five division stations i.e. Jaipur, Kota, Bikaner, Jodhpur and Neem-ka-Thana through Railway. At the time of taking delivery from the Railway, there was an over all shortage of 32.533 tonns. In para No. 7 of the report it has been mentioned : "Besides the above shortage, the Executive Engineer, PHED City Division-II, Kota, who had reported the shortage of 2.885 tonnes as per average length basis (841 tonnes were booked for Kota through 18RRs.) had expressed that the quality of shortage as per actual weight may increase to 42.435 tonnes, actual weight has, however, not been arranged so far despite specific directions from RSSMB (July, 1986) to that effect. The cost of further shortage of 39.550 tonnes, as apprehended by the Executive Engineer PHED City Division O-II, Kola worked out to Rs. 285145.61 as detailed in Annexure-A." 3. In these circumstances, this Court had directed the I.O. to be present in Court to explain the position. After taking several adjournments, he appeared on 5.1.94. He was supplied with a copy of the above factual statement prepared by Senior Deputy Accountant General (Works) as well as a copy of the civil suit. He was asked to remain present on the next date of hearing. After taking several adjournments, he appeared on 5.1.94. He was supplied with a copy of the above factual statement prepared by Senior Deputy Accountant General (Works) as well as a copy of the civil suit. He was asked to remain present on the next date of hearing. The matter was taken on 20.1.94 and on that day the I.O. could not properly explain the matter and the learned P.P. sought time to explain the matter after seeking the case diary and discussion of the matter with I.O. 4. The learned P.P. now submits that the I.O. did not turn up to explain the facts. However, he submits that from the various reports made by different persons, it appears that each party was putting blame on the other and the matter requires further investigation to find out the truth and the persons involved in the matter. The learned P.P. also states that this possibility cannot be ruled out that high-ups may be involved in it and in this connection some names of engineers have came during investigation. It is note worthy that the matter relates to the year 1984 when the Steel bars were imported in India. 5. In these circumstances, I think it proper to give a direction to the Superintendent of Police Kota to hand over the investigation to some higher police officer of the rank not below Dy.S.P. The petitioner was on interim bail till today, as such, it is just and proper that the said order be made absolute in the facts & circumstances of the case and he be given the benefit of anticipatory bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. 6. The SHO PS Dadabadi, Kota in FIR NO. 170/93 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Islam Mohammed s/o Rashool, he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to satisfaction and on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner 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 other police officer. *******