Honble KHAN, J.–This is an application u/S. 439 (2) C.P.C. by the complainant-injured and arises under following circumstances : (2). On June 30, 1996 the applicant lodged a sort with the P/s. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur, alleging therein that on that day at about 11.00 A.M. Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No. 2, led an unlawful assembly of a number of persons to her house, situate at Kama. This unlawful assembly was armed with weapon like lathis stones, spears etc. The members of the assembly, including Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent, broke open the door, windows etc. of the house of the applicant, trespassed into the house, damaged valuable belongings of the applicant, belaboured her and other inmates of the house and finally looted some valuables and set certain documents on fire. The applicant was, at the relevant time, the Chair-person of Municipality Kama. On the basis of this report Crime No. 120 of 1996 U/Ss. 395, 436, 452 IPC was registered at the police station and investigation was commenced. (3). During the course of investigation 28 persons, co-accused in the case, applied to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. but their application was dismissed on 14.8.96. Thereafter the said 28 persons approached this court for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4400/96 Khem Chand & 27 Ors. vs. State but this court too dismissed their application on 17.9.96. (4). After the dismissal of the application of 28 co-accused by this court on 17.9.96 two other co-accused, Uma Shanker and Mohan Lal, approached this court for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6178 of 1996. Allowing their application on 3.12.96 this court observed as under : ``The cause behind the incident is political rivalry. Madan Mohan Singhal appears to be the main accused. As many as 47 persons have been implicated in this case. This is a clear case of over implication. Accused Uma Shanker is a student. Accused Mohan Lal is about 60 years of age. They have no enmity with the complainant Meena Goyal. (5). Thereafter Dr. Kailash Chand Soni and Madan Mohan Singhal present respondent No. 2, applied through separate applications to the same learned Addl. Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. Disposing of both the applications by his combined order dated 7.1.1997 whereas the learned Addl. They have no enmity with the complainant Meena Goyal. (5). Thereafter Dr. Kailash Chand Soni and Madan Mohan Singhal present respondent No. 2, applied through separate applications to the same learned Addl. Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. Disposing of both the applications by his combined order dated 7.1.1997 whereas the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected Dr. Sonis prayer, he accepted the prayer of Madan Mohan Singhal. Respondent No. 2 for favourable directions u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground that some of the witnesses examined in the course of investigation had stated that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence at the house of the applicant, he was seen in the funeral procession at the cremation ground. The injured complainant is aggrieved against such order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. (6). I heard both the parties at sufficient length and went through the case law relied upon by them. The question regarding grant of anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. was thoroughly examined by the constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1). The Bench observed in para 21 of the report as under : ``A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hallmark of a prudent exer- cise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (7). Their Lordships of the Apex Court again reconsidered the matter in the case of Directorate of Enforcement & anr. vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao (2) and in para 8 of the report made the following pertinent observations: ``Legal position concerning the grant of anticipatory bail requires no repetition particularly in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Gurbaksh Singh which has settled the position well-nigh. vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao (2) and in para 8 of the report made the following pertinent observations: ``Legal position concerning the grant of anticipatory bail requires no repetition particularly in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Gurbaksh Singh which has settled the position well-nigh. Nonetheless, we remind ourselves that the order contemplated u/S. 438 of the Code is to be granted or refused by the Honble High Court or a Court of Sessions, after exercising its judicial discretion wisely. (8). Cancelling the bail granted to the accused in that case by the A.P. High Court their Lordships observed in para nos. 11 to 14 of the report as under: ``The learned Single Judge has taken into account the fact that all other accused arrested in connection with this case have been released on bail. But they were released on bail only on the failure of the investigation agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed in the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. How could this respondent take advantage of that fact? We cannot overlook that the respondent too has contributed to the non-completion of the investigation. Completion of investigation could be achieved only by interrogating all the persons involved as well as acquainted with the matter and after collecting all material evidence procurable. So the learned Single Judge should never have counted this point in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. The most glaring feature which even the respondent did not repudiate is the magnitude of the criminal conspiracy hatched, the ingenuity with which the cabal was orchestrated and the meticulousness with which it was implemented and the colossal amount of foreign exchange siphoned off from the country. It is not disputed that whomsoever perpetrated this grave economic offence deserves to be dealt with sternly under law. When the learned Single Judge himself felt, after going through the records in this case, that the materials already collected were capable of stretching an accusing finger towards the respondent, it was not at all a proper exercise of the discretion by favouring him with an order of anticipatory bail u/S. 438 of the Code. For the aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal, upset the impugned order and dismiss the application of the respondent filed u/S. 438 of the Code. (9). For the aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal, upset the impugned order and dismiss the application of the respondent filed u/S. 438 of the Code. (9). Their Lordships again considered the same question, in the case of State vs. Anil Sharma (3). In that case the accused respondent was a former Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government, besides being the Member of Legislature Assembly of that State. He had been charged with the offence u/S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He approached the High Court for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. and got the same. Upsetting the order of the High Court their Lordships of the Apex Court, made the following pertinent observations in para Nos. 7 and 8 as under: ``We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order u/S. 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected persons knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinter- ring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. The High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. The learned Single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that ``it is well settled that bail and not jail is a normal rule and then observed thus: ``Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat the proper investigation and fair trial, the court will not decline bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances have been brought to the notice of this court which may defeat proper investigation to decline bail to the applicant. The above observations are more germane while considering an application for post-arrest bail. The consideration which should weight with the court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest. At any rate of learned Single Judge ought not to have side-stepped the apprehension expressed by the CBI (that the respondent would influence the witnesses) as one which can be made against all accused persons in all cases. The apprehension was quite reason- able when considering the high position which the respondent held and in the nature of accusation relating to a period during which he held such office. (10). It is thus well settled that the considerations which should weight with the court while considering a prayer for pre- arrest bail would not necessarily be the same which should weigh while considering bail in post arrest period. The qualitative custodial interrogation of the suspected person is a relevant factor in the consideration of pre-arrest bails. The nature of accusation made the position held by the suspected persons and the possibility of his influencing the prosecution witnesses due to such position may also be taken into account while considering such a prayer. (11). In the instant case Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No.2 was not only named as the main perpetrator of the crimes allegedly committed at the house of the applicant but also that the prayer for pre-arrest bail made by the co-accused was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge himself at the earlier occasion and subsequently by this court also. Even thereafter while granting bail to other two co-accused Uma Shanker and Mohan Lal on 3.12.96 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6178/96 this court specifically pointed out that Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No.2 in the present application, appears to be the main accused in the case. The accusation made against him related to the commission of offences punishable u/Ss. 435/436 and 395 IPC. Misc. Bail Application No. 6178/96 this court specifically pointed out that Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No.2 in the present application, appears to be the main accused in the case. The accusation made against him related to the commission of offences punishable u/Ss. 435/436 and 395 IPC. Rejection of bail application u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. of similar co- accused by this court at earlier occasion and grand of bail to Uma Shanker and Mohan Lal on the ground of their ages and educational pursuits only should have given sufficient indication to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who himself had dismissed similar applications of other co-accused at earlier occasion and such or- der passed by him had been left undisputed by this court, of the gravity of the offence. Under such circumstances considering the plea of alibi of respondent No.2 totally ignoring other positive evidence contrary to that was not the judicial way of the exercise of his jurisdiction by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for grant of pre-arrest bail to respondent No.2. Therefore, in my opinion the learned Addl. Sess- ions Judge did not exercise the judicial discretion vested in him u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. in a judicial and correct manner. The bail granted by him to respondent No.2 Madan Mohan Singhal is required to be and is hereby cancelled. (12). In the result the order dated 7.1.97 granting bail u/S.438 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bharatpur to Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No.2 in F.I.R. No. 120/96 P/s. Kama Distt. Bharatpur is hereby set aside and the bail granted is cancelled. The application is allowed.