JUDGMENT -S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.:---Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri. A.P. Mundargi for the petitioners in Criminal Application Nos. 3956 of 1998, 3980 of 1998 and 545 of 1999 and Shri S.V. Marwadi for the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 3987 of 1998, Ms. A.R. Kamat, the learned A.P.P. for the respondents in all the matters. 2.The above four applications are anticipatory bail applications. By this common order all the aforesaid four applications have been disposed of inasmuch as the broad facts are common in all these four anticipatory bail applications. 3.All these applicants are connected with one Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd., a non-banking financial institute incorporated on 4th February, 1987. The said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. has its head office at Manish Market, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (East), Mumbai and its registered office is at Jawahar Nagar, Akola. The said Financial Institute has its regional office at Bhagyodaya Building, Station Road, Thane. It appears that the said Financial Institute has got over 500 branches in various districts of Maharashtra and also got around 15 branches outside the State of Maharashtra. The said Financial Institute has been receiving substantial amounts from the people on the pretext that the amount deposited with them would virtually double within a period of three years. It appears that the said Financial Company had maximum receipt of the deposits during the year 1992-93 onwards. As many depositors were not receiving back their main deposits, and they receive only interest amount had made complaints and ultimately Reserve Bank of India had conducted an inspection in the year 1994. During the said inspection the Reserve Bank of India has found that the said Financial Company had a much larger liability than its assets. Thereafter, it appears that, the Reserve Bank of India had issued prohibitory orders on 3rd March, 1995 restraining the said Financial Company from accepting the deposits from the public. These Directives of the Reserve Bank of India were also challenged by the said Company before the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 808 of 1995 which writ petition was finally dismissed. Thereafter a civil suit has been filed in Nagpur being Civil Suit No. 1081 of 1995 by one Shri R.A. Surve challenging the above directives wherein the suit is pending but there is no injunction. Thereafter a civil suit has been filed in Nagpur being Civil Suit No. 1081 of 1995 by one Shri R.A. Surve challenging the above directives wherein the suit is pending but there is no injunction. 4.Some of the Directors of the aforesaid Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. had also started other sister Companies in the name of Tejaswini Investment Ltd., Sahyadri Investment Ltd., Prajapati Investment Ltd., Silver Investment and Finance India Ltd., Sakshi Investment Ltd. etc. 5.After a number of small depositors were duped in a total sum of more than Rs. 20 crores, a public interest litigation came to be filed in this Court being Writ Petition No. 1893 of 1997. In the said writ petition this Court has issued detailed directives on 24th June, 1997. Some of the directives which are relevant for the purposes of anticipatory bail application are as under:-- i) The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai shall appoint the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence Wing, to inquire into the affairs and functioning of the 3rd respondent; ii) The Deputy Commissioner of Police is directed to hold the necessary inquiry to find out the whereabouts of the property of the third respondent Company, both moveable and immoveable; iii) Various Directors of the Board of the said Company were directed to state on oath their moveable and immoveable properties and all assets and the location thereof including various Bank accounts etc., they were also directed to file an affidavit disclosing the list of group companies and indicate the amounts/assets, whether moveable or immoveable, which were transferred from the said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. to its group companies. iv) This Court has also directed the Reserve Bank of India to inform all the scheduled and commercial Banks not to permit the Directors' of the said Company to operate any of their Bank Accounts. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was further directed to find out the assets of the Directors of the said Company and to investigate whether any amount belonging to the Company is siphoned off to any sister concerns or in the names of relatives or associates of the Directors of this Company. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also directed to prepare an inventory of the properties belonging to the said Company's Directors and attach the same. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also directed to prepare an inventory of the properties belonging to the said Company's Directors and attach the same. The Deputy Commissioner of Police was also granted liberty to approach Reserve Bank of India for the purposes of obtaining the names of auditors of the Company and group companies for the purposes of investigation. v) By the said order the Deputy Commissioner of Police was further directed to investigate into the alleged involvement of the field staff and other persons connected with the said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. 6.In the aforesaid proceedings the learned Government Pleader had informed the Court that after the above directives, a total property worth Rs. 1.59 crores have been seized and that the investigation was still in progress. 7.In the said writ petition the respondent No. 12 was one Shri A.R. Sinha, who is a Director of the said Finance Company and is the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 3956 of 1998 herein. In the said writ petition there is an allegation that the said Shri A.R. Sinha was working as a Branch Manager of Sanjeevani Savings and Investments Ltd. during the period 15-6-1992 till 12-3-1995. Thereafter he became the Director of the said Company. It is pertinent to note that a sister company Tejaswini Investment Ltd. had floated by Shri Sinha taken over the liability of Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 2.00 crores and admittedly this was without any consideration. The only reason apparently appears to be that Shri A.R. Sinha was connected with the said Sanjeevani Savings and Investment India Ltd. and transferred the liability to the said Tejaswini Investment Ltd. In the present application No. 3956 of 1998 the petitioner A.R. Sinha has sought anticipatory bail with regard to nine cases referred to in the prayer (b) and has also sought a blanket order of anticipatory bail with regard to all other cases that are likely to be registered in the concerned police stations and the concerned police stations should also be directed to release the said applicant by granting anticipatory bail. 8.Shri A.P. Mundargi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also mentioned that the said Tejaswini Investments Ltd. which has taken over the liability to the extent of Rs. 8.Shri A.P. Mundargi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also mentioned that the said Tejaswini Investments Ltd. which has taken over the liability to the extent of Rs. 2.00 crore from Sanjeevani Savings and Investments Ltd. has about 26 branches all over Maharashtra and they have some branches outside Maharashtra. He also conceded that the total investment by members of public with the said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments Ltd. is over Rs. 20 crores by about five lakhs of depositors. 9.The main contention of Shri Mundargi is that various depositors are filing various complaints in various parts of Maharashtra and in all these cases the petitioner has to seek bail whereas the submission is that petitioner should be released by way of anticipatory bail in all the cases that have been filed all over Maharashtra and also in all the cases that are likely to be filed against him. 10.Similarly, Shri A.P. Mundargi also submits with regard to Criminal Application No. 3980 of 1998 as well as Criminal Application No. 545 of 1995, similar prayers are made. Shri Marwadi adopted and reiterated the same arguments on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 3987 of 1998. 11.As far as Criminal Application No. 3980 of 1998 is concerned there are in all 7 petitioners. This is a common application for 7 persons seeking anticipatory bail with regard to the various cases mentioned in prayer clause (b). It is an admitted position the said petitioner Satishkumar had started another Investment Company Inor Investment Ltd. wherein he is the Managing Director. It is pertinent to note that the said Inor Investments Ltd. has 10 to 12 thousand investors. It is also mentioned that the said Inor Investments Ltd. has taken over liability of Rs. 15 lakhs from the said Sanjeevani Savings and Investments Ltd. The 2nd petitioner in the said application is P.B. Jumde who is a Director of the said Company since 1987. 12.As far as Criminal Application No. 3987 of 1998 is concerned Shri J.P. Pande is a Director of Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. from June 1987 to March 1992. As far as Criminal Application No. 545 of 1999 is concerned the petitioner Shri Shantaram Vinayak Karale joined Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. as an Agent, thereafter he came to be promoted as a Divisional Officer in 1992. As far as Criminal Application No. 545 of 1999 is concerned the petitioner Shri Shantaram Vinayak Karale joined Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. as an Agent, thereafter he came to be promoted as a Divisional Officer in 1992. Since June 1993 he is working as a Divisional Manager and from July 1994 he is working as Area Manager and from December 1995 he has been removed from the said Company. He is seeking anticipatory bail with regard to various C. Rs. registered in various police stations as well as various C. Rs that are likely to be registered. 13.The main submission of Shri A.P. Mundargi in all these anticipatory bail applications filed by these Directors, all the relevant investigation is over and there is no need of police custody and there is likelihood of complaints that may be filed against the petitioner in various police stations and as such they might be arrested again and again and they will have to continue in custody and thereafter they will be released. The submission is that accused have been in custody for about 70 days and as such no further custodial interrogation is necessary. The main reason for the anticipatory bail application is that the petitioners are likely to face various criminal cases and as such order of anticipatory bail ought to be granted with regard to all the cases that are pending against the petitioners and also with regard to all cases that are likely to be filed against the petitioners in future also. 14.Ms. A.R. Kamat, the learned A.P.P. has very strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail in all the above applications on the following grounds. 15.The fraud committed by the Company is over Rs. 20 crores and there are 5 lakhs of depositors. Admittedly the petitioners-Directors have floated about 11 financial sister-concerns. The learned A.P.P. pointed out as of today in pursuance of the directives of this Court police has attached various assets and properties of the companies and of the Board of Directors to the extent of Rs. 4.00 crores. The police are still investigating as to where the rest of the amount of Rs. 20.00 crores has gone. The said Directors have admittedly started sister companies. 4.00 crores. The police are still investigating as to where the rest of the amount of Rs. 20.00 crores has gone. The said Directors have admittedly started sister companies. The learned A.P.P also pointed out since March 1994 no books of accounts have been maintained by the said Financial Company and during all these years right from 1994 the said Financial Company has not paid any income-tax and also submitted that this case involves detailed investigation and custodial interrogation. The learned A.P.P. brought to my notice that admittedly Tejaswini Investments Ltd. has taken over the liability of Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 2.00 crores without any consideration. This is also very clear in the manner in which the depositors have been duped by taking over the liability of Sanjeevani Savings and Investments India Ltd. of Rs. 15.00 lakhs. 16.The learned A.P.P has also pointed out that there is a strong prima facie evidence of involvement of all these accused in the above fraud and also after the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1893 of 1997 police have been investigating consistently and it was brought to the notice that from June 1997 till November 1998 none of the petitioners have even once appeared before the investigating agency and been co-operating with regard to the aforesaid investigation. 17.In this behalf the learned A.P.P relied upon the Apex Court judgment in (Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria)1, reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 841. In the above case the Supreme Court had to deal with FERA violation case involving a whopping sum of 37 crores. In the above case the Supreme Court has deprecated the directives of the High Court granting an order whereby the officials of the Directorate were injuncted from arresting the accused and also fixed the time and place where the interrogations to be carried on. The Supreme Court has observed that a blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. The Supreme Court also emphasised that the considerations to be weighed with the Court while dealing with a prayer for pre-arrest bail are materially different from a post-arrest bail application. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Supreme Court was pleased to set-aside the order passed by the High Court whereby anticipatory bail was granted. The Supreme Court also emphasised that the considerations to be weighed with the Court while dealing with a prayer for pre-arrest bail are materially different from a post-arrest bail application. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Supreme Court was pleased to set-aside the order passed by the High Court whereby anticipatory bail was granted. 18.The learned A.P.P. also pointed out that mere material is not sufficient and custodial interrogation based on this material is necessary. Ms. Kamat also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of (Harshad S.Mehta v. Union of India)2, reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 4032. This Court had dealt with the case of custodial interrogation and held as under:- ".........Interrogation while he is at liberty will not serve any useful purpose for the petitioner can then take recourse to stonewalling tactics and keep the game going indefinitely. As against this if he is in custody, the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate will be better able to force him to concentrate on the issues and put pointed questions to him and extract relevant information. The technique of interrogation also involves confrontation either with a person or documents and that is possible, and at least more effective, when the person being interrogated is in custody. Liberty of the citizen is desirable but also desirable is the need to detect, investigate and prosecute those guilty of any offence, not excluding economic offences." 19.The learned A.P.P also pointed out that out of 12 Directors of the said Sanjeevani Company six Directors are still absconding. 20.The learned A.P.P. also relied upon a case in (K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory)3, reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 2556 In this case also the Supreme Court has emphasised necessity of custodial interrogation and if such a person were to be granted anticipatory bail, it might impede investigation resulting in tampering with the prosecution evidence. 21.Similarly the learned A.P.P also relied upon similar judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain)4, reported in 1998 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 857(S.C.) In this case also the Supreme Court has emphasised custodial interrogation in serious cases of economic offences. 22.The learned A.P.P. relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in (State Rep. By the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma)5, reported in 1997(2) Supreme(Cri) 236. 22.The learned A.P.P. relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court in (State Rep. By the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma)5, reported in 1997(2) Supreme(Cri) 236. In this case the Supreme Court has emphasised the necessity of custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under section 438 of the Code and held with the following observations:- "............In a case like this effective interrogation of 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 person 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 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 disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 23.The learned A.P.P., in view of the aforesaid settled legal position as expounded by the Supreme Court, submits that no anticipatory bail be granted in these cases. She also submits that it is a large scale fraud with various ends still to be found out in the investigation and if these applicants were to be granted anticipatory bail they are likely to tamper with the investigation and their custodial interrogation is absolutely essential. 24.Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that all the above applicants, prima facie are involved in the said fraud of Rs. 20 crores involving about 5 lakhs innocent depositors, the investigation is still pending, various ends will have to be still found, records are also yet to be taken charge of from the applicants. The investigation is still not complete. The applicants are likely to tamper with the evidence and may even abscond. 25.Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the aforesaid four criminal applications. Hence all the aforesaid four criminal applications stand dismissed. 26.The ad-interim order dated 23rd December, 1998 stands vacated. The investigation is still not complete. The applicants are likely to tamper with the evidence and may even abscond. 25.Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in the aforesaid four criminal applications. Hence all the aforesaid four criminal applications stand dismissed. 26.The ad-interim order dated 23rd December, 1998 stands vacated. 27.Shri. Marwadi, the learned Counsel for the applicants in Criminal Application No. 3987 of 1998 prays for stay of operation of this order for a period of two weeks. The learned A.P.P strongly opposed on the ground that the fraud involved is a large scale fraud of about Rs. 20 crores and custodial interrogation of the applicants is very much essential and in larger public interest, stay of order not to be granted. Since the amount involved is over Rs. 20 crores and various links have to be connected and innocent depositors would be deprived of their hard earned money, this is not a fit case where stay of the order could be granted. Stay refused. 28.Issuance of certified copy expedited. Applications dismissed. -----