ORDER S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. The above petition is for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Aluva. He has approached this Court for anticipatory bail on the apprehension that he has been implicated as an accused in Crime No. 5/96 of the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam. Petitioner was unsuccessful in his attempt to get anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Learned Sessions Judge expressed a doubt as to the actual involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence but refused to grant bail on the ground that "any connection with the case is bad enough". 2. One Seena (who is said to be a minor) along with one Sunny was arrested by the Central Police, Ernakulam alleging offences punishable under S.3 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Subsequently, Seena was released on bail. 3. On the basis of the statement made by Seena, Crime No. 5/96 was registered by the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam. In her statement, she had stated that she was abducted by one Ajitha Beegom and sold to one Suresh. Suresh utilised her for making money by forcing her to have sexual intercourse with many persons. Suresh sold her to one Sunny, who also used her for the shameful business. In the course of her statement, she referred to the petitioner. According to her, Suresh left her in the quarters of the petitioner at Aluva. The allegation is that the petitioner committed rape on her. Originally, there were only three accused; (1) Ajitha (2) Suresh and (3) Sunny. It was only on 14.8.1996 that the petitioner was made an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence has been made out against the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated. He referred to the statement made by Seena with respect to the petitioner and said that it was a cooked up story and cannot be believed for a moment. He also submitted that from the records, it can be found that Seena was not a minor. Further, he submitted that even if the statement are believed, no offence is made out against the petitioner, unless it is shown that the complainant was a minor at the relevant time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition vehemently. He contended that the accusation against the petitioner are serious and a serious crime has been committed. Further, he submitted that even if the statement are believed, no offence is made out against the petitioner, unless it is shown that the complainant was a minor at the relevant time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition vehemently. He contended that the accusation against the petitioner are serious and a serious crime has been committed. He particularly submitted that offences against women are to be seriously viewed and especially when a person like the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the offence, the court should be very cautious in exercising the discretion vested in it under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that the petitioner has been suspended from service. 5. The provision regarding anticipatory bail was introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been described as a pre arrest legal process. It is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective from the very moment of arrest. S.438 has been described as a procedural provision concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is entitled to the presumption of innocence. 6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 565 , a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows: "The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these consideration was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case under the old S.498 which corresponds to the present S.439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the Society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail". A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail". 7. On an anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. Petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 5/96 of the Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam shall be released on bail on the following conditions: (1) He shall execute bond for an amount of Rs.1 lakh and also provide two solvent sureties for the like sum. (2) He shall present himself before the Circle Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, Willingdon Island on every day at 10 A.M. and shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required. (3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Ernakulam District without the prior permission of this Court. (4) He 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 Police Officer. Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.