Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Thiagaraj S. Chettiar is making a third attempt before this Court by seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. apprehending arrest in respect of Crime Nos. 2/1997 and 11/1997 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (b), 409, 420, 467, 471, 477-A read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Crime Branch cm. Chennai. the respondent herein. ( 2 ) THE petitioners first attempt in Crl. O. P. No. 6453 of 1997 had failed on 10-6-1997. He made the second attempt in Crl. O. P. Nos. 8415 and 9166 of 1997 and the same had also failed on 24-7-1997. Without getting disheartened the petitioner is making the third attempt through these applications, in respect of the cases referred to above. ( 3 ) ON 3-3-1997 the Chairman cum-Managing Director of the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (shortly known as ELCOT) gave complaint to the respondent, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of ELCOT and ELNET, which is a Joint venture of ELCOT, to the tune of Rs. 9. 00 crores, in this capacity as the Managing Director during the period 1994-96, by raising loans from various companies and misutilised the same to discharge his personal loans and for his personal use. This case was registered in Crime No. 2 of 1997 for the offences referred above. ( 4 ) ON 18-6-1997, the complainant made another complaint to the respondent alleging that the petitioner, as a Director of ELNET disposed promoters quota shares worth about Rs. 50. 00 lakhs to M/s. Credit Capital Venture Funds, in violation of shareholders agreement with the ELCOT; transferred. Rs. 44. 91 lakhs to his credit; awarded a contract for the construction in the ELNET in favour of his own company, at a higher rate of Rs. 350,00 lakhs, concealing the fact that the above contract was already allotted to some other company for Rs. 3 13,00 lakhs and misappropriated Rs. 37,00 lakhs, and that he had swindled Rs. 62. 00 lakhs by raising bogus bills for the works already completed and the amount was claimed. This was registered in Crime No. 11 of 1997 by the respondent for the offences referred above. ( 5 ) EVEN before the registration of the second case, the petitioner filed Crl. 37,00 lakhs, and that he had swindled Rs. 62. 00 lakhs by raising bogus bills for the works already completed and the amount was claimed. This was registered in Crime No. 11 of 1997 by the respondent for the offences referred above. ( 5 ) EVEN before the registration of the second case, the petitioner filed Crl. O. P. No. 6453 of 1997 seeking anticipatory bail before this Court in respect of the first case. This Court, while dismissing the application, by an order dated 6-6-1997, observed that, in the interest of the public and justice, this Court strenuously feels that it is unsafe to grant anticipatory bail in such a big criminality contemplated, that too, at the crucial stage of investigation. ( 6 ) AS stated above, the second complaint was registered in Crime No. 11 of 1997 on 8-6-1997. In the mean time, in respect of the Crime No. 2 of 1997, since the investigation was over, relating to five companies, out of 16 companies, charge sheet was filed on 3-7-1997. The respondent also filed a petition before the lower Court, intimating that the further investigation is being done under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to other companies, as mentioned in the First Information Report in Crime No. 2 of 1997. ( 7 ) TILL the time of filing of the charge sheet, i. e. on 3-7-1997, relating to Crime No. 2 of 1997 the petitioner being the main accused was not available for arrest and was absconding. So he was shown as absconding in the charge sheet. Even thereafter, without surrendering before the Court, in which the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court in Crl. O. P. Nos. 8415 and 9166 of 1997 in respect of both the cases, seeking for anticipatory bail. ( 8 ) THIS Court, by its order dated 24-7-1997 elaborately considered the submissions put forth by the Counsel for the petitioner and held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail, in view of the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for the custodial interrogation by the respondent as requested by them. Even after the dismissal of the said applications by this Court, the petitioner was neither available for arrest by the respondent nor chose to surrender before the Court. Even after the dismissal of the said applications by this Court, the petitioner was neither available for arrest by the respondent nor chose to surrender before the Court. ( 9 ) ON, On 31-7-1997 in the case registered in Crime No. 2 of 1997 where the charge sheet had already been filed and the case was taken on file in C. C. No. 5525 of 1997, the respondent police obtained a non-bailable warrant from the lower Court. Despite effective steps taken to arrest the petitioner, the respondent was not able to trace him out. Therefore, the respondent filed an application under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the lower Court and sought for proclamation regarding the abscondence of the petitioner. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, on considering the circumstances narrated in the petition and on being fully satisfied with the fact that the said Thiagaraj S. Chettiar is absconding and concealing himself to avoid the service of warrant, passed an order on 6-10-1997 in C. C. No. 5525 of 1997 issuing proclamation and directed the petitioner to appear before the said Court on 17-11-1997, The said proclamation as per the order of the Court was widely published, in both English and Tamil dailies. The said order was affixed at the residential place and also in those places where the petitioner was suspected to be available, at Madras. Subsequent to the proclamation, various teams were sent by the respondent on different date, to all over India, to secure the petitioner, but there was no fruitful result. Since the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 17-11-1997, as per the proclamation order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Madras, the respondent has taken steps by filing an application before the lower Court, to issue an order of attachment of the properties belonging to the petitioner under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 10 ) ONLY at this stage, the petitioner has filed these anticipatory bail applications making third attempt before this Goud. The petitioner also filed a revision on 19-11-1997 before this Court in Cr1. R. C. No. 836 of 1997, to set aside the order of proclamation made in C. C. No. 5525 of 1997 dated 6-10-1997. ( 11 ) THE revision referred above came up before the Honble Mr. Justice A. Raman on 26-11-1997. The petitioner also filed a revision on 19-11-1997 before this Court in Cr1. R. C. No. 836 of 1997, to set aside the order of proclamation made in C. C. No. 5525 of 1997 dated 6-10-1997. ( 11 ) THE revision referred above came up before the Honble Mr. Justice A. Raman on 26-11-1997. Though the revision was admitted, this Court declined to stay the arrest of the petitioner or the execution of the warrant against him. In the revision, this Court merely passed an order of interim stay of attachment of properties, under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that too, only for a week. ( 12 ) WHEN these applications for anticipatory bail came up for final disposal on 27-11-1997, the order of limited stay regarding the attachment of properties under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a week has been brought to the notice of this Court. In this fact situation, this Court is called upon to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail or not. As observed by this Court in the orders passed twice earlier, the petitioner is facing very serious charges. The petitioner at the relevant period, alongwith others in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, indulged in the act of criminal breach of trust by falsification of accounts; committing forgery by using forged documents and cheating. resulting if wrongful loss of Rs. 9,00 crores to ELNET, a joint venture of ELCOT, which is a Tamil Nadu Government undertaking. These offences are said to have been perpetrated by the petitioner and others by means of raising loans and deposits from banks and companies using forged documents bogus bills falsifying the company accounts by increasing the cost of materials purchased, and hypothecating the same with other companies; inserting resolution in the Board meeting minutes, fabricating the Board resolution etc. , and enrich themselves, causing wrongful loss to the said ELNET and ELCOT to the tune of several crores. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the ELNET, on the basis of the bogus Board Meeting resolution, the petitioner got a sum of Rs. 100,00 lakhs from TIDCO and subsequently, transferred the same to his personal account and utilised the said amount for his own use. Similarly, he obtained Rs. 40,00 lakhs each from Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited and Mcdowell Krest Finance Limited; Rs. 50. 100,00 lakhs from TIDCO and subsequently, transferred the same to his personal account and utilised the said amount for his own use. Similarly, he obtained Rs. 40,00 lakhs each from Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited and Mcdowell Krest Finance Limited; Rs. 50. 00 lakhs each from ITC Classic Finance and WIPRO; Rs. 25. 00 lcikhs each from West Asia Maritime Ltd. , J. Sikle (I) Limited, Aquasub Engineering; Soundarraja Finance Limited; Rs. 75. 00 lakhs each from Lloyds Finance Limited and The Repatriates Cooperative Financial and Development Bank Limited; Rs. 20. 00 lakhs from M/s. Surana and Surana. Rs. 24. 00 lakhs from Tamil Nadu Finance Limited; and Rs. 168. 00 lakhs from Fortis Financial Services Limited and transferred the said sum to his personal account and utilised for his personal use. ( 14 ) THE investigation so far made in respect of both the complaints reveal that the allegations are true in regard to several counts. With reference to other transactions, the respondent submitted that still voluminous documents have to be collected and lot of connected witnesses have to be examined with regard to the involvement of the petitioner, in raising finance from other companies. It is also submitted that the further investigation in Crime No. 2 of 1997 in which, first the charge sheet, was filed and the investigation in Crime No. 11 of 1997 are still pending. At this stage according to the prosecution, it is apprehended that if the petitioner comes out on anticipatory bail, the further investigation in the above cases to unearth the facts relating to the huge misappropriation of public money, would be hampered. It is also contended by the prosecution that in the event of grant of anticipatory bail he would again abscond as he has been doing all along, from the date of registration of the case and in such case the interest of the prosecution would certainly be jeopardised. ( 15 ) MR. It is also contended by the prosecution that in the event of grant of anticipatory bail he would again abscond as he has been doing all along, from the date of registration of the case and in such case the interest of the prosecution would certainly be jeopardised. ( 15 ) MR. Ayyadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted at length that the petitioner being a popular industrialist, belonging to a respectable family and a permanent resident of Chennai city is entitled to anticipatory bail, especially when the entire case rests on the documentary evidence and as such there is no need for custodial interrogation Learned, Counsel of the petitioner also submitted that since these transactions would amount to violations of the various provisions under Companies Act, the prosecution could have taken action for such violations under Section 234, 234 (7), 235, 241, 242, 244 and 245 of the Act and that therefore the initiation of the prosecution for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, is nothing but a harassment. ( 16 ) THE learned Government Advocate per contra, would submit that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner becomes very essential, in view of the fact that the petitioner had to be interrogated with reference to each and every entry made in the various records which are forged and fabricated, in order to unearth the involvement of the petitioner in the frauds committed in the name of various companies thereby swindling the public money to the tune of several crores. ( 17 ) AS indicated earlier the present applications seeking for anticipatory bail are filed for the third time. This Court dismissed the first application observing that the petitioner, being the main accused, could not be granted the relief of anticipatory bail, taking into consideration of the magnitude of the offence, especially at the crucial stage of investigation. This Court, again in, in the order dated 24-7-1997 passed by me in Crl. O. P. Nos. This Court dismissed the first application observing that the petitioner, being the main accused, could not be granted the relief of anticipatory bail, taking into consideration of the magnitude of the offence, especially at the crucial stage of investigation. This Court, again in, in the order dated 24-7-1997 passed by me in Crl. O. P. Nos. 8415 and 9166 of 1997, specifically observed that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there has to be custodial interrogation of the petitioner and that only then the Investigating Agency would be able to unearth the other materials to find out the ways of the misappropriation and how the disposal of the those misappropriated amount was effected by the petitioner. Despite this order dated 24-7-1997, the petitioner did not choose to surrender either before the Court or before the Police. Further, having, failed in the attempts made by the respondent to apprehend the petitioner, an application was filed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the lower Court and the same was ordered on 6-10-1997 and prior to this, the respondent also obtained a non bailable warrant in the case already charge sheeted on 31-7-1997. In pursuance to the order of proclamation, the proclamation was widely published in the English dailies The Hindu, The Indian Express. Madras Head Lines and in Tamil dailies Daily Thanthi, Dinamani, Malai Murasu. Dinakaran, Dinamalar on 7- 10- 1997 and 8-10-1997. The proclamation order was affixed in the houses and in various premises including his office, numbering about six. After the proclamation, a special party was arranged to secure the absconding petitioner and the party was sent to New Delhi, Bombay and other places, but no clue was available. ( 18 ) I have gone through the case diary in order to verify whether suitable steps have been taken by the respondent to arrest the petitioner subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier application decided by me. On perusal of the case diary. I am convinced that Himalayan efforts have been taken by the Investigating Agency to apprehend the petitioner. The case diary would indicate that every day the team went to several places, all over India in order to find out the whereabouts of the petitioner. On perusal of the case diary. I am convinced that Himalayan efforts have been taken by the Investigating Agency to apprehend the petitioner. The case diary would indicate that every day the team went to several places, all over India in order to find out the whereabouts of the petitioner. In the meantime his passport has been impounded and a portion of the bank accounts have been freezed, as per the request of the Regional Passport Officer the respondent obtained a non bailable warrant from the Court and the copies of which were given to the Passport. Officer and necessary order also was obtained from the Court for directing the Passport Authority to impend the passport of the petitioner. The perusal of case diary will go to show that the petitioner has been shifting from place to place and touring all over India, without allowing himself, to come under the custody of the Police. Enquiries reveal that the petitioner used to stay in posh hotels like Oberai, Oberai Towers etc. in various cities of India. Steps have also been taken to enquire about his whereabouts by going to those hotels. Despite these efforts the petitioner has managed to abscond from 3-3-1997 onwards. At the outset, if I may say so, with agony, the attitude of the petitioner of continued abscondence at this length of time, makes this Court to feel that the petitioner has no regard for law, nor any respect to the Court. In my earlier order, I specifically observed that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and he has to come into the custodial interrogation. But the petitioner has not cared to surrender, despite the said observation. After all the efforts failed the respondent filed a petition before the lower Court and requested for proclamation. Subsequent to the order of proclamation, the said news was published in all the places all over India. As per the order of proclamation, the petitioner has to appear on or before 17-11-1997 before the lower Court. For this order also, he has not chosen to obey. ( 19 ) HAVING given scant respect to the orders of this Court, now, the petitioner has approached this Court, probably hoping that a long and continued abscondence may dilute the serious situation. For this order also, he has not chosen to obey. ( 19 ) HAVING given scant respect to the orders of this Court, now, the petitioner has approached this Court, probably hoping that a long and continued abscondence may dilute the serious situation. The capability to evade, the process of law and the capacity to circumvent the orders of the Courts for a considerable length of time, cannot, in my view, be complemented. One may be intelligent, but it is not enough. The integrity to the position he holds is more important. Further more, only on 19-11-1997, the petitioner chose to file a revision against the order of proclamation before this Court. i. e. , subsequent to the expiry of the date fixed by the lower Court. In this revision, the Honorable Mr. Justice Raman, did not think it fit to stay the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was only an interim stay of attachment of the properties under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that too, only for a week from 26-11-1997. As per the counter filed before this Court, it is made clear that the respondent only filed an application under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the lower Court for attachment and as such there is no material as on date that another order has been passed under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court, could very well go into question of entitlement of the petitioner regarding the grant of anticipatory bail, especially when the Honble Mr. Justice. A Raman has observed that there is no order of interim stay as regards the arrest or the execution of warrant. ( 20 ) THE most agonising factor is that the petitioner, having absconded for about nine months and having obtained dismissal orders in his applications on two occasions from this Court and having not obeyed the orders of proclamation or warrant by the Trial Court, has again come forward before this Court seeking for anticipatory bail. Of course, this needs courage. However, in the absence of the change of circumstances and in the absence of the valid ground. I am not able to comprehend, as to how the petitioner has now approached this Court, seeking for the very same relief, on the very same reasons given in the earlier petitions, which were dismissed. Of course, this needs courage. However, in the absence of the change of circumstances and in the absence of the valid ground. I am not able to comprehend, as to how the petitioner has now approached this Court, seeking for the very same relief, on the very same reasons given in the earlier petitions, which were dismissed. ( 21 ) THE submission made by Mr. Ayyadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner that there are other provisions under the Companies Act, to take such other action for the violation of the sections of the said Act, in my view is not a tenable one and the same does not sound well because, the Investigating Agency is well within its rights to initiate action in respect of the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, as the averment contained in the First Information Report and other records reveal such offences. ( 22 ) MOREOVER, the accused cannot be allowed to dictate the Investigating Agency that the prosecution could be only for the lesser offences under Companies Act and not for the serious offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, as no law permits the accused to make such a command. ( 23 ) FURTHER more, when the Investigating Agency says that further investigation could be done with reference to the documents and by examining other witnesses, only after the custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who is the main accused, and especially, as I have already observed that the petitioner has to be necessarily examined by the Investigating Agency under custodial interrogation; I feel that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. ( 24 ) AS already held by the Apex Court, in State represented by the CHI v. Anil Sharma, the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning the accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 25 ) IN the fact situation of the case, I am strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in favour of granting anticipatory bail. ( 25 ) IN the fact situation of the case, I am strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in favour of granting anticipatory bail. There cannot be any doubt that if the petitioner, who is highly influential and efficient enough to abscond all along, is equipped with such an order, before he is interrogated by the police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Moreover, public interest would suffer as a consequence. ( 26 ) THE Apex Court in Director of Enforcement and Another v. P. V. Prabhakar Rao, has observed that when the Court feels about the materials already collected being capable of stretching the accusing fingers towards the accused, it is not a proper exercise of jurisdiction by favouring him, with an order of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court, in the decision in Gurubaksh Singh v. State of Puryab, has observed that where there are reasonable grounds for holding that when a person, accused of an offence, is likely to abscond or misuse the liberty, there seems no justification to grant anticipatory bail. ( 27 ) SO, in view of the forgoing analysis and in the absence of any material to show that the accusations levelled against the petitioner appears to stem from some ulterior motive, I am not in a position to take a different view from that of my earlier view, while dismissing the earlier petitions. ( 28 ) THEREFORE, I reiterate that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and atleast, in the future, let him give due regard to the orders of this Court by surrendering himself to the police or to the Court, as in my view, the status in life, affluence or otherwise are hardly relevant considerations while, examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. ( 29 ) IN the result, in view of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail and therefore, this petition is dismissed. Application dismissed.