S. K. MUKHERJEE, RABIN BHATTACHARYYA ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank of Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta, has sought for anticipatory bail on the allegations of violating the provisions of FERA which stem from sections 50 and 56 of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It has been highlighted in the application for anticipatory bail that he sanctioned a loan to the extent of Rs. 6. 31 crores in the year 1995 to the group of companies of one Shri A. N. Ghosh through M/s. Vaibhab Trade and Credit Private Ltd. also to Mafcon International Ltd. against securities. In pursuance of such allegations, he was put under arrest and was subsequently released on bail by the learned court below. In enforcing the claim for anticipatory bail, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, is emphatic in his submission that once he was bailed out by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the prosecution of the same in a different case involving an identical amount (6. 31 crores) cannot afford any ground to the investigation agency to proceed against the petitioner further. The allegations when stand on a common platform where in one of such cases he was bailed out the objection to anticipatory bail founded on self same allegations is a misnomer. ( 2 ) TO snuff out the challenge, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted with reference to the allegations that the boot is on the other leg. Looking to the anatomy of the prima facte evidence on record, the amount reaches the fringe of over 10 crores of rupees. The cheques were allowed to be encashed in favour of a payee having no account with the Bank. It is also glaring to find prima facte that cheques were issued in the name of fictitious persons who encashed the cheques shortly after their deposits. It is really preposterous and the situation becomes prima facie inconceivable as it is extraneous to Banking laws having not only a reflection on the public exchequer but also on the credibility the Bank. On looking to the case clocket or the case diary, a fraud has been perpetrated on the Foreign Exchange by the petitioner and others. We are at a loss to find the deceptive action of petitioner. On looking to the case clocket or the case diary, a fraud has been perpetrated on the Foreign Exchange by the petitioner and others. We are at a loss to find the deceptive action of petitioner. ( 3 ) THE offence perpetrated by the petitioner alongwith a body of individuals prima facie discloses the well calculated move to engulf the amount contrary to law. The offence since committed by a public servant by abuse of his official position in discharge of official duties does not foster any claim for anticipatory bail. It is a formidable hurdle in the wav of the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. ( 4 ) THE submission made by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties to say not to the prayer for anticipatory bail is well grounded in reason and logic and appears to have unstitnted support from the prima facte materials on record. It is couched in correct and dignified submission for clearing the air. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we would like also to mention an important feature, relating to the petitioner, which has been revealed by the records, which we were required to consider in connection with the present anticipatory bail application. It appears from such records that prior to the moving of the present application, the petitioner successfully endeavoured to secure almost similar type of relief from being arrested by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and similar endeavour also appears to have been made by the other accused persons as revealed from the case dockets. There has been a challenge to the authority of the lawyer in the aforesaid proceedings on behalf of the Respondents themselves and to the consequences of action of such unauthorised lawyer. No doubt, while passing the order on the application moved before us, such feature may not have much relevance yet feel that recurrence of such embarassing situations for the Court must be discouraged and prevented. The matter therefore, deserves a special mentioning to remind ourselves of the need of greater alertness and closer vigil. This application is, therefore, rejected. The interim order granted is vacated. Application rejected