ORDER 1. These four anticipatory bail applications arise, from English Bazar Police Station, P.R. Case No. 263/94 registered under s. 420/409/120B were heard together and are disposed of under a common order. 2. The Sub-Divisional Controller lodged a report with the officer-in-charge, English Bazar Police Station alleging, inter alia, that he received an information that superior kerosene oil of about 4000 litres was allotted to S. K. Gupta in addition to his usual allotment for the month of March and also several fictitious, faked and fabricated permits were issued to different persons and institutions. No sooner the District Magistrate, Malda, was apprised of the situation than conducted an enquiry through D.S. Kanjilal, Deputy Magistrate and Deputy Collector, Malda. From the enquiry report it was unearthed that a large number of permits of superior kerosene oil were issued since 1993 under the order and signature of the petitioners and the permits were sanctioned by them without any legal authority. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, the case was registered against these petitioners in the English Bazar Police Station. These petitioners apprehending arrest have filed the above Misc. Cases for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsels for the petitioners, vehemently argued that on the basis of a false report a case was registered against them and they are apprehending arrest at every moment. It is further contended that they being the Government employees, in the event of their arrest, they may be placed under suspension. Thus, to avoid humiliation and further harassment they may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the prosecution had urged with strong intansity of conviction that serious offences are alleged to have been committed by these petitioners. They being in public offices, abused trust and confidence and, thus, they should not be granted anticipatory bail. In the flutters of the argument and counter argument of both parties we went through the statement of different witnesses so far collected in course of investigation. Some of the witnesses categorically stated not to have applied for grant of special permit to lift the kerosene, although, the permits have been issued in their favour by these petitioners. It is most unfortunate that the officials holding public offices are not oblivious of their duty entrusted to them. Public at large repose utmost faith and confidence in them. Such officers are meant to use and not to abuse. It is most unfortunate that the officials holding public offices are not oblivious of their duty entrusted to them. Public at large repose utmost faith and confidence in them. Such officers are meant to use and not to abuse. From the conduct of the petitioners, it appears that every one has been dishonest to gain unfair advantage. The whole exercise of issued of permit has turned out to be a farce exhibiting the base-character of those who have been responsible for their sordid episode. The grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief granted to a party but it must be based on sound judicial consideration. In this regard, the Apex Court in its decision reported in AIR 1985, SC page 969 laid down the principle as follows: "Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under s. 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a prearrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under s. 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by s. 46(1) or confinement". 6. The court has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. Status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail. It intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be cautious and wary in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, strongly urged that the petitioners being Government employees unless they are granted anticipatory bail. there is likelihood of being placed under suspension. From the various documents and statements of different witnesses produced by the prosecution so far collected during the investigation. we found their implication into the offence. If they prima facie abused their office and issued faked, forged and fabricated permit they should not claim protection by the grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest. 8. From the various documents and statements of different witnesses produced by the prosecution so far collected during the investigation. we found their implication into the offence. If they prima facie abused their office and issued faked, forged and fabricated permit they should not claim protection by the grant of anticipatory bail in the event of arrest. 8. We do not find any compelling circumstances to grant anticipatory bail, to the petitioners and accordingly we reject the prayer. 9. The-petitioners nowhere have levelled mala fide against the prosecution. The investigation has to traverse a long distance and in the meanwhile if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail it would impede the smooth progress of investigation. 10. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 11. In the result, their applications stand rejected. Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: I agree. Application rejected.