Jaspal Singh ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who claims himself to bean Ex-Memberof Parliament, is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections342/386/377 of the Indian Penal Code. He is seeking anticipatory bail. ( 2 ) THE investigation is still going on. The learned Counsel for the State hastaken me through the statement of the complainant and so also to the statements ofsome of the witnesses who have been examined under Section 161 of the Code ofcriminal Procedure. I need not go deep into what they have said. The complainantsays that he is the owner-landlord of property No. 90 situate at Poorvi Marg, Vasantvihar, New Delhi and that since he was keen to dispose of the same, the accuscd/petitioner took advantage of the same, entered into some agreement of sale, tooksubstantial part of the advance money himself and grabbed it. He alleges that hewas kept in confinement with men keeping surveillance over him and wasthreatened, beaten and compelled to sign on certain documents including certaincheques and that on three occasions his person was subjected to sodomy also bynone other but the petitioner himself. The Investigating Officer has also recordedthe statements of Aas Mohd. , A. Ghosh and Gurcharan Singh under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure. Aas Mohd. claims to have been employed as adomestic help by the present petitioner whereas A. Ghosh and Gurcharan Singh areallegedly living in the neighbourhood of the petitioner. They do lend support to thecase of the prosecution to the extent that the complainant was kept under surveillance. As per Aas Mohd. not only he but three more persons were directed to keepa watch on the complainant and that the petitioner used to subject the complainantto physical violence. The State during investigation has also recorded the statementof one S. K. Sharma who is the Manager of the Central Bank of India, Gole Marketbranch which goes to show that at least three cheques of Rs. 1 lakh each, which wereissued by the complainant, were deposited in the account of the petitioner or hiswife. Besides that the complainant has alleged that out of the money receivced bythe petitioner from the agreements of sale the petitioner has purchased a car, oiltankers, two coolers, two TV sets, one fridge, one camera, one VCR and someornaments for his wife. 1 lakh each, which wereissued by the complainant, were deposited in the account of the petitioner or hiswife. Besides that the complainant has alleged that out of the money receivced bythe petitioner from the agreements of sale the petitioner has purchased a car, oiltankers, two coolers, two TV sets, one fridge, one camera, one VCR and someornaments for his wife. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since Section 437 (1) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure imposes no limit bn Section 438 and since thepetitioner happens to be a respectable person and as there is no apprehension of hisrunning away from the law or not participating in investigation, therefore, heshould be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. He has further submitted that nocase for extortion is made out and that in any case Section 386 of the Indian penalcode is not attracted. With regard to offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penalcode he submits that there is no material to even prima facie involve the petitioner. As regards Section 342 though it is claimed that though the allegations are false,in any case, the offence is bailable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner hasfurther submitted that the petitioner had been participating in the investigation. However, as per the learned Counsel for the State, the petitioner has all along beenextremely unhelpful. ( 4 ) AS already noticed, the matter is still under investigation. I have alreadyreferred to above in short the case of the prosecution and the variety of circumstances which the investigation has revealed. It need hardly be mentioned thatwhile exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 the Court has to act with due careand circumspection. It has also to take into consideration the variety of circumstances and their cumulative effect. What is also to be taken note of is the natureand seriousness of the charge and the contents leading to the making of the charge. ( 5 ) WHAT is the position in this case? The case shows that very seriousallegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He has been charged ofserious offences. It is no stage to go deep into the merits but whatever has beenbrought on the record does, prima facie, show that there is material on the recordwhich suggests the commission of offences under Sections 386/377 and 342 of theindian Penal Code. The case shows that very seriousallegations have been levelled against the petitioner. He has been charged ofserious offences. It is no stage to go deep into the merits but whatever has beenbrought on the record does, prima facie, show that there is material on the recordwhich suggests the commission of offences under Sections 386/377 and 342 of theindian Penal Code. There are clear assertions in the statement of the complainantwith regard to extortion, with regard to his having been subjected to physicalviolence and also about his having been threatened with death and kept inconfinement. He clearly asserts that he was made a victim of sodomy by thepetitioner thrice. May be the petitioner has been an Ex-Member of Parliament. Suchresponsible persons are expected to act more responsibly. In any case theinvestigation is still in progress and I do feel, keeping in view the totality of whathas been discussed above, and the assertion of the State that the attitude of thepetitioner has been extremely unhelpful, that no case is made out for anticipatorybail. The petition is dismissed. However, nothing said in this order shall be readas an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.