JUDGMENT 1. - Yashpal Bhalla, the applicant is the Director of M/s. Urvashi Enter- prises, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi (Alwar) which is a consumer of electric energy having A/C No. ALC/1-1-221 with Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB). On November 28, 1996 a special vigilance team of the officers of the Board made an inspection at the business premises of the said industrial unit and found the seals of the metering box tampered and broken. The shape of lead seals were found enlarged, de-shaped and disturb excess soldering was found rubbed, sealing wires were found loose, yellow and rod stickers were found either removed or displaced from their original positions wires/threads of plastic signature scale No. 003813 T were found broken and the broken end was found re-inserted and adhesive paste applied. The inspection had been made in presence of the applicant. The team calculated the theft of electric energy at Rs. 99 Lacs. Mr. B.S. Gupta, Executive Engineer (O&M) RSEB, Bhiwadi reported the matter to Police Authorities at P.S. Bhiwadi (Alwar). Crime No, 212/96 for offence under section 379, IPC and a/Sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act was registered. 2. Apprehending his arrest in the case registered against him the applicant applied for bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. After having heard the parties the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar granted anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to certain conditions which are not challenged by the applicant before this Court. However the learned Sessions Judge further added that the order passed by him shall remain in force for one month or till the submission of charge-sheet, if any, against the applicant or till surrendered, by the applicant before the Coin petent Court, whichever event occurs earlier. He further observed that if the applicant surrendered before the Competent Court and prayed for regular bail, such Court would consider his prayer for regular bail with gut being influenced in any manner by the order passed by him under section 438, Cr.P.C. By the present application the applicant has challenged the above directions/observations, given or made, on the grounds of those being illegal, without jurisdiction, oppressive and unjustified. 3. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 4. 3. I heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. 4. The provisions contained in Section 438, Cr.P.C. confer special powers on the High Court and the Sessions Judge for directing the release of a person on bail in the event of his arrest on a charge of committing non-bailable offence. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court the salutary provision was enshrined in Section 438 to see that the liberty of the subject is not put in jeopardy on frivolous grounds at the instance of unscrupulous or irresponsible persons or officers who may be in-charge of prosecution. (See AIR 1977 SC 366 , Balchand v. State . Sub-section (2) of Section 438 provides that while making direction a /Sec. 438(1), the Court granting anticipatory bail to a person, may include such conditions in such directions, in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit. The sub-section enlists certain conditions but such conditions are simply illustrative and not exhaustive. The use of the word 'including' in the language of Sub-section (2) clearly indicates that the Court may impose such conditions also as have not been enumerated in Clauses (i) to (iv) of the sub-section. Since a number of considerations such as nature or seriousness of the charges, the context of events leading to those charges, possibility of the applicant's evading the trial or tampering with the prosecution evidence and even "the larger interest of the public or the State", as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh ( AIR 1962 SC 253 ), may weigh with the Court while granting or refusing to grant bail u/ Section 438, Cr.P.C. to an applicant. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case the Court may even decide to grant bail fora short specified period only. The concept of grant of bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. for a limited period only is thus not alien to the very concept of anticipatory bail a/Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 1900 SC 1632) grant of bail under/Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. for short duration was not disapproved of. The concept of grant of bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. for a limited period only is thus not alien to the very concept of anticipatory bail a/Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh (AIR 1900 SC 1632) grant of bail under/Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. for short duration was not disapproved of. In the later decision in the case of Salahuddin Sheikh ( 1996 (1) SCC 667 )=I (1996) CCR 93 (SC) the Supreme Court upheld the order of grant of bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. for limited duration and rather stressed that in the changed scenario of administration of criminal justice and the conditions prevailing in the society bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. should ordinarily be granted for limited durations. Viewed in the light of the authoritative pronouncements from the Apex Court the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant for a limited duration was not without or beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Judge. In the nature of the order passed by the learned Judge his direction to the concerned Court to consider the question of grant of regular bail either under section 437 or under section 439 without being in any manner influenced by the order u /Sec. 438, in case the applicant surrendered before him and prayed for such bail, was not in no way inconsistent with the spirit of the order passed by him. The impugned order thus suffers from neither the vice of want of jurisdiction to the learned Judge to pass such an order not in any way amounts to abuse of the process of his Court or is oppressive or unjust in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is thus no merits in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. At the instance of the prosecutor the applicant was asked to show cause as to why the bail granted to him be not cancelled. There is thus no merits in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. At the instance of the prosecutor the applicant was asked to show cause as to why the bail granted to him be not cancelled. It was, however, pointed out at the hearing that though the operation of the impugned order was not stayed by this Court and as per directions contained in the impugned order the same was to remain in force for the duration of one month only after the date of passing that order as that was the event which was to occur earliest, yet the applicant did not avail of the benefit given to him under that order and did not surrender before the Court concerned and prayed for regular bail there, there arises no occasion to consider the question of cancellation of the bail. The prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor for cancellation of bail therefore survives no more for any sort of orders from this Court. The notice issued to the applicant in that behalf is, therefore, withdrawn and dropped.In the result this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. *******