Judgment : This application has been filed seeking for anticipatory bail. 2. This application is opposed by the respondent. 3. According to the respondent, the premises bearing door No.26, ‘M’ Block, X Street, Anna Nagar, Madras-102, was searched by the Income Tax Authorities who seized foreign currencies and certain other documents. On the information so submitted by the Income Tax Authorities, the respondent wanted to examine the petitioner herein and a summon was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 12. 1996. The summon was served under Rule 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules 1974. The petitioner appears to have sent a telegram informing that interrogation of the petitioner was being continued by the Income Tax Authorities and sought for an adjournment. It is also seen that in the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition. In W.P. No. 1948 of 1996 and the writ petition was dismissed on 13. 1996. On 13. 1996, a further summon was issued for the appearance of the petitioner fixing a date. The petitioner did not appear on the date, but he appeared on 23. 1996 and gave a statement before the Enforcement Officer. He undertook to appear before the summoning officer on 23. 1996, but did not appear. He sent a letter on 23. 1996 informing that as his mother’s health was causing concern and as he had to arrange for medical help, he could not attend and he would attend soon after his mother’s health improved. Therefore, summons were issued for the appearance of the petitioner on two occasions, namely 4. 1996 and 14. 1996. These summons, according to the respondent, could not be served in person and hence served under Rule 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974. The petitioner did not appear but filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court and it was dismissed on 30.4.1996. Now again this application is filed for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner is a senior I.A.S. Officer. But merely on that account, the request for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. The relevant consideration which governs the discretion of the court with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail are materially different from those where an application for bail is made for a person who is arrested in the course of the investigation. But merely on that account, the request for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. The relevant consideration which governs the discretion of the court with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail are materially different from those where an application for bail is made for a person who is arrested in the course of the investigation. The proposed action should not be for some ulterior motives. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the event likely to lead to the charges, the possibility of the accused avoiding trial, a reasonable apprehension that the witnesses will be tampered with and larger interest of the public or the State are the relevant considerations to be kept in mind, while deciding the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The investigation is not complete. It is being pursued by the department. Accordingly to the Public Prosecutor further investigation may reveal ramifications of wider amplitude. There can be no presumption that the petitioner is not likely to interfere with the investigation. He is said to be are influential I.A.S. Officer. Therefore, in the context of the above relevant considerations, we have to see whether the petitioners’ request for anticipatory bail is well founded. The petitioner would say that only about $ 5,000 U.S. dollars was were recovered during the search conducted by the Income-tax and it is not a huge sum. The amount of $ 5,000 U.S. dollars may not be a huge sum for the petitioner, but in terms of the Indian currency, it amounts to nearly Rs.2,00,000. Further the investigation may also that it is only a top of the Ice-bag. The amount or value of the currency recovered is not a criterion. Certain information is sought for by the authorities constituted under Foreign Exchange Regulations Act. The Foreign Exchange Regulations Act is an act which is enacted in the larger interest of the nation to conserve valuable Foreign exchange. Therefore, the national interest is in a way involved in this case. The fact also remains that the petitioner is Senior I.A.S. Officer. The likelihood of tampering with witnesses and the evidence cannot be ruled out. Moreover, according to the respondent, the investigation has only commenced. The petitioner was asked to appear to clarify certain aspects. The petitioner has failed to turn up. The fact also remains that the petitioner is Senior I.A.S. Officer. The likelihood of tampering with witnesses and the evidence cannot be ruled out. Moreover, according to the respondent, the investigation has only commenced. The petitioner was asked to appear to clarify certain aspects. The petitioner has failed to turn up. The fact that the petitioner did not turn up and did not respond to the summons is a fact that cannot be ignored. The significance of the same cannot be belittled by stating the because of his mother’s health, he could not appear before the authorities. The petitioner is after all a resident of the city of Madras. The office of the respondent is in the city of Madras. The petitioner could have easily spared an hour or a couple of hours to attend and give a statement or explain the aspects on which clarification was sought by the Department. That has not been done. On the other hand, we find that the petitioner chose to file a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter summon was issued. But, he did not appear and he chose to seek anticipatory bail in the lower court. This conduct on the part of the petitioner emphasises the fact that the petitioner will not be co-operating with the investigation. He is in a mood to throw the spanner in the works. Therefore, in the background of the above facts, if we consider the request for grant of anticipatory bail, it will be enormously clear that the petitioner is not entitled to benevolent provisions of the Act. Further, there is also no basis to hold that this action is initiated either in a spirit of vendetta or with a view to defame, harass and malign the petitioner. To hold so, we are not equipped with any facts. The investigation is to see found out whether there is any basis to hold that there was a violation of any rules under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The petitioner is not in the mood to co-operate. Hence the grant of anticipatory bail will not be in the larger interest of the society, more so when the petitioner has been adopting a defiant stand and unco-operative attitude. The status in life of the petitioner is hardly a relevant consideration. The petitioner is not in the mood to co-operate. Hence the grant of anticipatory bail will not be in the larger interest of the society, more so when the petitioner has been adopting a defiant stand and unco-operative attitude. The status in life of the petitioner is hardly a relevant consideration. The court has to be cautions and circumspect in exercising the discretion of the power to grant anticipatory bail. 5. It has also been held by the Bench of this Court in T. T. V. Dinakaran and P.Srinivasan v. The Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Southern Zone, Shastribhavan", Madras-6 in Writ Appeal Nos.853 and 865 of 1995, that the investigation contemplated under Sec.40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, it cannot be equated to the position of a show cause notice in criminal proceedings before a Police Officer. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Poolpandi, etc. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and others etc. etc. A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1795, that a person called for questioning during investigation by authorities under the provisions of the Customs Act or the FERA is not an accused. Here, in this case, the case of the petitioner is that because he has not appeared in response to the summons, he apprehends that he may be arrested on this ground, and this the anticipatory bail is sought for. The authorities have already recorded a statement from the petitioner. As they require further clarification, they have called upon the petitioner to appear, which the petitioner has avoided. In this circumstance, the petitioner cannot seek anticipatory bail. Moreover, it has been held in S.L.P. No.942 of 1995 by the Supreme Court that ordinarily the court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation, and the courts should be wary of its possible consequences. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts, I am firmly of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail, and this is not a case where it can be contended with any effectiveness that the grant of anticipatory bail is warranted by circumstances. Hence, this petitioner is dismissed. Copies to be issued to both side today itself.