JUDGMENT : A.B. Srivastava, J. The applicant Anand Mohan Srivastava has moved this application for bail in connection with offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C., under Investigation by P. S. Moolganj, district Kanpur (Nagar). 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. have been heard. 3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 16.3.1994 a person claiming to be Moolchand Jaiswal presented a Bank Draft for Rs.9,830/ drawn on the, State Bank of India, Pratapgarh Branch and purchased iron bars. Subsequently by means of three Bank Drafts he purchased further iron bars, in all worth Rs. 4,80,935/-. Meanwhile, the same person in the company of accused Anand Mohan produced a Draft at another firm at Kanpur which was suspected to be forged. On being apprehended, he gave his correct name as Awadhesh Kumar being the maternal uncle of Anand Mohan who is an employee of the said Bank. 4. According to prosecution, applicant Anand Mohan who obtained two blank Draft Books from Kunda Branch, instead of delivering the same to Pratapgarh Branch, kept that with him,-falsely stating that the Kunda Branch did not deliver the same and later absented from duty. The drafts aforesaid were forged on the blank forms of O. L. series from these very books, and were used as genuine valuable security to obtain goods by cheating. A report to the effect has also been lodged by the Branch Manager concerned. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he has been made an escape goat and the cheating and fabrication have been done by his superior officers. 6. As the matter stands, there are direct allegations and prima facie proof about the applicant being the person who despite having received- the Draft Books, concealed this fact, stopped attending to his duties and it were the Drafts fabricated on those Books which were utilised for securing goods worth over Rs. Four lacs. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that the applicant being a public servant is alleged to have committed these acts of cheating and fabrication of valuable security, allowing him bail at this stage would hamper the investigation and may also result into tampering of the evidence. 7. Four lacs. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that the applicant being a public servant is alleged to have committed these acts of cheating and fabrication of valuable security, allowing him bail at this stage would hamper the investigation and may also result into tampering of the evidence. 7. The contention that bail for the offences about which investigation is going on, not being punishable by death or imprisonment for life, the applicant deserves to be released on bail as a matter of right, does not have substance. In Gurubaran Singh and Ors. v. State reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 , no such principle is laid down, rather it is observed in para 24 of the said ruling that the overriding considerations in granting ball both in the case of 4:37 (1) and Section 439(1), Code of Criminal Procedure are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed, the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from the justice and similar other relevant grounds. No different principles have been laid down in Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284 . 8. For all the above reasons as to the factual and legal position, therefore, the applicant in this case is not entitled to ball. 9. The application is accordingly rejected.