Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Thiagraj Chettiar is seeking anticipatory bail in these two applications, in respect of crime No. 2 of 1997 and Cr. No. 11 of 1997, on the file of the respondent - Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C. I. D. , Chennai, registered for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A, 120-B, 465, 471 and 420 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE former case was registered on 3. 3. 1997 and the latter case was registered on 18. 6. 1997 against the petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. S. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner in these two applications would contend that the petitioner is the Managing Director of ELNET Ltd. Chennai, a joint venture of ELCOT, which is an organization of Tamil Nadu Government undertaking, and that he apprehends arrest in respect of the accusation of criminal breach of trust, falsification of documents forgery and cheating, for having allegedly caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 7 crores, and that actually he has not committed any offence, much less the offences charged against him, and that the petitioner is having a running account with ELNET company, and a credit balance for the year 199495, as per the credit balance of balance sheet, and that all the withdrawals are only in his account and certain amounts had been transferred to ELNET Technologies Ltd. , and that so far the accounts for the year 1995-96 had not been completed and finalized, and so the charges leveled against the petitioner are not true. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel would further submit that the Management of ELNET Ltd. had been taken over by the ELCOT nominees, and as such, the petitioner can do nothing now with the records of the company, since all the records are available with ELCOT and no records could be tempered with. ( 5 ) THESE allegations are stoutly opposed by the State through the respondent, that the petitioner committed illegal acts, such as criminal breach of trust, forgery and cheated to the tune of Rs. 10 crores, by using forged documents and caused a wrongful loss to ELNET Ltd. , Public Limited company, and joint venture of ELCOT, which is an organization undertaken by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also pointed out by learned Govt. Advocate, that previous applications filed by the petitioner in Cr1. 10 crores, by using forged documents and caused a wrongful loss to ELNET Ltd. , Public Limited company, and joint venture of ELCOT, which is an organization undertaken by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also pointed out by learned Govt. Advocate, that previous applications filed by the petitioner in Cr1. O. P. Nos. 6453 and 6667 of 1997, had been dismissed by this Court, by order dated 6. 6. 1997. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, these petitions have been said to be filed on the fresh circumstances, viz, the charge sheet has been filed, and that the petitioner has already been suffering from heart ailment, and that moreover, the entire case in respect of the above accusation is borne out through records, and as such, the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail. ( 7 ) AS pointed out earlier, two cases have been registered against the petitioner. The accusation in Cr. NO. 2 of 1997, is as follows The Petitioner, the Managing Director of ELNET Ltd. in pursuance of the conspiracy with other accused has raised deposits from the Government owned companies and private finance companies, numbering about 16, by using the name of ELCOT Ltd. by preparing bogus bills, falsification of accounts, and utilised the said amount for his personal use. ( 8 ) THE total amount collected from the said 16 companies would come about Rs. 7 crores 78 lakhs. On behalf of the ELNET company, the petitioner applied for intercorporated deposit of Rs. 100 lakhs to TIDCO concealing the fact that there was no resolution passed by the ELNET company Board, authorising him to get a sum of Rs. 100 lakhs as intercorporated deposit. But he has produced a copy of resolution purported to have been passed by the Board of Directors, authorising him to get intercorporated deposit from TIDCO, on behalf of ELNET at its 39th meeting, as if it was held on 22. 9. 1994. Factually, there was no such meeting, and no such resolution passed. ( 9 ) THE petitioner received the cheques for a sum of Rs. 100 lakhs from TIDCO on behalf of ELNET, and deposited the said cheques in Bank of Madura, in ELNET company account, without making entries in the complainants records. He subsequently transferred the amount to his personal account, maintained in Bank of Madura, and utilised the said amount for his own use. 100 lakhs from TIDCO on behalf of ELNET, and deposited the said cheques in Bank of Madura, in ELNET company account, without making entries in the complainants records. He subsequently transferred the amount to his personal account, maintained in Bank of Madura, and utilised the said amount for his own use. ( 10 ) SIMILARLY, the petitioner on behalf of the ELNET company applied for intercorporate deposit from Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers Ltd. and obtained a cheque for Rs. 40 lakhs in favour of ELNET company, and this was also transferred to his personal account. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY he obtained Rs. 50 lakhs from ITC Classic Finance, Rs. 25 lakhs from West Asia Maritime Ltd. , Rs. 40 lakhs from Mcdowell Krest Fin. Ltd. Rs. 75 lakhs from Lloyds Finance and the Repatriates Cooperative Finance and Development Bank Ltd. , each, Rs. 20 lakhs from MIs. Surana and Surana, Rs. 24 lakhs from Tamil Nadu Finance Ltd. , Rs. 25 lakhs each from J. Sikle (I) Ltd. and Aquasub Engineering, Rs. 36 lakhs from Kasturi Leasing Company, Rs. 2slakhs from Soundarraja Finance Ltd. , Rs. 168 lakhs from Forties Financial Service Ltd. and Rs. 50 lakhs from Wipro, and these entire amounts have been transferred to his personal account and utilized for his personal purpose. ( 12 ) ON coming to know of this Mr: Madavan Nambiyar, I. A. S. , Chairman and Managing Director of ELCOT, gave a complaint to the respondent, which was registered in Cr. No. 2 of 1997, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 I. P. C. , read with 120-B I. P. C. ( 13 ) BY the same modus operandi, the petitioner being the Director of ELNET Technologies at Taramani, disposed promoters quota shares worth about Rs. 50 lakhs to MIs. Credit Capital Venture Funds, in violation of share holders agreement with ELCOT and transferred Rs. 44. 91 lakhs to his credit and mis-appropriated. He has also awarded a contract for the construction in the ELNET city in favour of his own company at a higher rate of Rs. 350 lakhs, concealing the fact from the other Directors, that the above contract was already allotted to MIs. G. K. Shetty for Rs. 313 lakhs and misappropriated Rs. 37 lakhs. He has also swindled Rs. He has also awarded a contract for the construction in the ELNET city in favour of his own company at a higher rate of Rs. 350 lakhs, concealing the fact from the other Directors, that the above contract was already allotted to MIs. G. K. Shetty for Rs. 313 lakhs and misappropriated Rs. 37 lakhs. He has also swindled Rs. 62 lakhs by raising of bogus bills for civil and electrical works which were already completed and the amount was claimed. ( 14 ) IN respect of this accusation, as stated earlier, the Chairman and Managing Director, ELCOT, gave another complaint against the petitioner, which was registered in Cr. No. 11 of 1987, for the offences under the above referred sections of law. ( 15 ) AT the outset I must mention that though the first case in CR. No. 2 of 1997 was registered on 3. 3. 1997, inspite of efforts taken by the respondent to appended the petitioner, he is yet to be arrested. It is now stated that the petitioner left the State, immediately after the registration of the case, and went to Mumbai. It is also submitted that all possible efforts are being taken to secure the petitioner by the respondent, but, however, he is still not available. ( 16 ) IN the mean time, as indicated earlier, the petitioner filed Cr1. O. P. No. 6453 of 1997, before this Court, and the same was dismissed on 6. 6. 1997, with the following observation: Looking into all these aspects since the case us strongly based on records and in view of the further contentions of the prosecution that not only due to the absconding of these petitioners, but also of the other accused who are still at large, are to be interrogated and still more witnesses are to be examined relating to the facts revealed in the documents so far, in the interests of public and justice, this Court strongly feels that for allowing the applications not a very strong case is put up by the petitioners at this stage as against the magnitude of the offences contemplated on the part of the State. It is unsafe to grant the anticipatory bail at this crucial stage of investigation, in such a big criminality contemplated. Hence at this stage, this Court is left with no option but to arrive at the decision to dismiss the above applications. It is unsafe to grant the anticipatory bail at this crucial stage of investigation, in such a big criminality contemplated. Hence at this stage, this Court is left with no option but to arrive at the decision to dismiss the above applications. Accordingly both the above applications stand dismissed. ( 17 ) HOWEVER, in these present applications, learned counsel for the petitioner is able to point out one material change of circumstance. Admittedly on 6. 6. 1997, when the previous applications were dismissed, it was at the investigation stage. Now, as admitted by learned Government Advocate and mentioned in the counter affidavit, that charge sheet has been filed in respect of Cr. No. 2 of 1997 on 3. 7. 1997. Therefore, this application could not be merely opposed by the State on the ground that previous application was dismissed, since admittedly there is a change of circumstance. ( 18 ) BUT one important factor to be taken into consideration is that in respect of another complaint given by the same Chairman and Managing Director of ELCOT, on similar allegations, with reference to the swindling of the amount of ELNET Ltd. by the petitioner as a Director, on 18. 6. 1997, another case has been registered in Cr. No. 11 of 1997, for the offences referred above. ( 19 ) 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, and also perused the case diary. ( 20 ) THOUGH I am not inclined to accept the ground of object raised by the State that previous application has been dismissed by this Court, I have to refuse the petitions for anticipatory bail to the petitioner in both these case, for the following reasons (i) In Cr. No. 2 of 1997, the total number of companies including the Government companies involved are 16. The charge sheet has been filed by the respondent on 3. 7. 1997, on completion of investigation regarding the allegation referred to in the complaint only in respect of five companies. It is pointed out by learned Government Advocate, that further investigation Is being done in respect of remaining companies under Section 173 (8) Cr. The charge sheet has been filed by the respondent on 3. 7. 1997, on completion of investigation regarding the allegation referred to in the complaint only in respect of five companies. It is pointed out by learned Government Advocate, that further investigation Is being done in respect of remaining companies under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. As such, merely because charge sheet has been filed, it cannot be contended that the entire investigation is over in respect of the accusation with reference to all the companies referred to in the complaint given by the Managing Director, which was registered in Cr. No. 2 of 1997, on 3. 3. 1997. (ii) Only after the disposal of the earlier application on 6. 6. 1997, another case has been registered against the petitioner in Cr. No. 11 of 1997. This case also relates to swindling of several lakhs. Admittedly, investigation in this case has just started. Though the petitioner was not available for interrogation in respect of the case in Cr. NO. 2 of 1997, before the charge sheet has been filed on 3. 7. 1997 in respect of five companies, learned Government Advocate would submit that interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential, at least for the remaining companies, in order to unearth the facts relating to misappropriation of huge public money. Learned Government Advocate would, further submit that the investigation with regard to the said five companies was completed even without the interrogation of the petitioner since the complainant has given materials in respect of those companies in the complaint itself, but to unearth the involvement of the petitioner in the other companies, custodial interrogation of the petitioner becomes very much necessary. (iii) One other ground which makes me feel that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail in this; (i) In the previous application filed by the petitioner he stated before this Court by producing a Doctor certificate issued by one Dr. Somasundaram, M. D. , D. M. , Tutor in Cardiology, Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Madras, dated 4. 5. 1997, to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension! heart disease for the past one year and he has been under his treatment for the same. A prayer for interim anticipatory bail was also made orally before this Court. (ii) This Court while dismissing the previous application on 6. 6. 5. 1997, to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from hypertension! heart disease for the past one year and he has been under his treatment for the same. A prayer for interim anticipatory bail was also made orally before this Court. (ii) This Court while dismissing the previous application on 6. 6. 1997, directed the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the genuineness of the said certificate, so that it could consider the relief of interim anticipatory bail, if his health condition was so serious. Accordingly, the respondent went to the Doctor concerned and since he was not available, he recorded the statement of the Nurse working in the Hospital, who stated that the Doctor was in outstation, and the petitioner was not admitted in the hospital. The respondent reported before this Court that he was not able to ascertain the veracity of the certificate issued by the Doctor, and requested to reject the prayer of interim anticipatory bail. (iii) On that basis, this Court ordered on 10. 6. 1997, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to move this Court with a separate written memorandum for the relief of interim anticipatory bail, on the ground of ill-health. (iv) Now in the present petitions also, similar request has been made by the petitioner; stating that interim anticipatory bail has to be granted to the petitioner, since he is suffering from heart ailment. With reference to this prayer, the respondent filed a counter, stating that the respondent went and enquired Dr. Somasundaram, with reference to the certificate issued by him, and the Doctor has stated that the petitioner was never admitted in the hospital owned by him, and he was treated by him for the past six months, and that he gave the certificate since the father-in-law of the petitioner approached him saying such certificate is necessary for getting an adjournment in a civil case. (v) It is also stated by Dr. Somasundaram, to the respondent that the petitioners wife again approached him, two weeks back, for another medical certificate for the petitioner, and he refused to give such certificate, as he has not seen the petitioner for the last six months. (vi) In the case diary produced by the respondent, the statement of Dr. Somasundaram is available, in which as per his statement dt. 14. 7. (vi) In the case diary produced by the respondent, the statement of Dr. Somasundaram is available, in which as per his statement dt. 14. 7. 1997, it is stated, that the petitioner did not come for medical check up to him for the past six months. Therefore, it is made clear that the genuineness with regard to the certificate and with regard to his heart ailment, had not been established by the petitioner, whereas the Doctor, who issued the said certificate has categorically stated that he has not seen the petitioner for the past six months. (iv) It is specifically submitted by learned Government Advocate that only through the custodial interrogation, the ways of misappropriation and the disposal of the funds misappropriated could be elicited from the petitioner, and that if he is interrogated on anticipatory bail, the petitioner may not co-operate with the investigating agency and in that event, the misappropriated funds could not be recovered. I find some force in this submission, because the petitioner has been continuously not available for arrest and interrogation, from the date of the registration of the first case, i. e. on 3. 3. 1997. (v) Furthermore, despite the dismissal of the earlier application, the petitioner did not choose to surrender either before the police or before the Court. ( 21 ) IN this context, it is quite relevant to refer about the report of the Law Commission referred in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case1, in the following words:in recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. " ( 22 ) BUT, in this case nothing has been established by the petitioner that the accusation levelled against him appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice, but from some ulterior motive. It is also not established that the request of arrest sought for by the respondent is only to injure and humiliate the accused by having him arrested. It is also not established that the request of arrest sought for by the respondent is only to injure and humiliate the accused by having him arrested. ( 23 ) YET another factor is, admittedly despite the hectic efforts taken by the respondent in these cases, involving swindling of several crores, the petitioner continue to abscond. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds, for holding that the petitioner in the event of granting anticipatory bail is not likely to abscond. Status in life, affluence or otherwise are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. ( 24 ) THE Apex Court in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan2, has held that anticipatory bail, especially in the cases like this, to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. ( 25 ) THEREFORE, when the prosecution agency apprehends that the investigation would be hampered with by the petitioner, and he would abscond, as he has been doing all along from the date of registration of the case, this Court feels that it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in view of the peculiar circumstances as discussed above. As rightly pointed out by learned Government Advocate, that if the petitioner comes under custodial interrogation, the investigating agency may likely to unearth the other materials to find out the ways of misappropriation and how the disposal of those misappropriate amounts was effected by the petitioner. ( 26 ) IN that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail, and hence the petitions are dismissed. Petition dismissed.