J. B. Goel ( 1 ) BY this order the aforesaid two petitions (Crl. M. (M) 330/99) and (Crl. M. (M) 338/99) first under Section 439 and the second under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code ) filed by Harish Narayan Singhani and Monika Harish Singhani respectively are being disposed of. ( 2 ). Both these petitions arise out of RC No. 12 (E)/96-SRJ-VIII registered by the CBI under Sections 120-B reach with Sections 420,467,468. and 471, IPC. ( 3 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that no forgery, fraud or cheating has been committed by the petitioners and the case is false and baseless and their prosecution is unwarranted. ( 4 ). For appreciating this contention, it will be relevant to go into the brief facts of the case which are as follows. ( 5 ). By virtue of Indo-EU Bilateral Textile Agreement, products falling under Category 26, i. e. "powerloom Ladies Dresses" are placed under restricted category. ( 6 ). On the basis of information received from European Commission through Indian Embassy, Brussels and on verification of this information that ladies dresses falling in the Category 26 had been exported on forged certificates of AEPC, a complaint was lodged by Deputy Director (Quota Policy) Apparel Export Promotion Council, New Delhi (for short aepc ) on 31. 12. 1996 alleging that M/s. Manik Enterprises has exported powerlooms (PL) ladies dresses to M/s. What Everyone Wants and M/s. Hamlet Itemational PLC, London, UK on the basis of fake and forged seven particular export certificates issued by the AEPC. On this information case RC No. 12 (E)/96-SIU-VIII was registered by CBI. ( 7 ). Investigation by the CBI has revealed that M/s. Manik Enterprises and M/s. Kapil Products are registered as Merchant Exporters with AEPC. ( 8 ). In pursuance of the existing Export Policy the exporter had to apply to AEPC for export certificate entitlement in respect of restricted category of garments. M/s. Manik Enterprises and M/s. Kapil Products were granted following seven such export certificates: ( 9 ). Quantities being very small, apparently, these certificates were issued/ obtained for the purpose of sending readymade garments to the aforesaid foreign buyer on sample basis. These seven export certificates are alleged to have been forged and such forged certificates have been used for export of the following goods: ( 10 ). Quantities being very small, apparently, these certificates were issued/ obtained for the purpose of sending readymade garments to the aforesaid foreign buyer on sample basis. These seven export certificates are alleged to have been forged and such forged certificates have been used for export of the following goods: ( 10 ). Obviously huge quantities of goods of restricted Category 26 have been exported without the authorisation of the AEPC and as such the export is unauthorised and illegal. Petitioner Harish Narayan Singhani is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Manik Enterprises and was maintaining Current A/c No. 600748 and also O/d limit with Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and through that Bank had negotiated the documents of export and had realised the amounts against the following Export Bills: ( 11 ). Goods have also been exported per Invoices No. 146/95 and 147/95 and 164/95 drawn in the name of M/s. Hamlet International, Pie, London, UK. During investigation some of the GR Forms, Airway Bills, Export and Shipping Bills have been seized, inter alia GR AH-623041; GR AJ 252862 (164/95), AJ 252883, GR AH 623041 (ME 147/95) and GR AJ 252883 (ME/165/95) available with the RBI and other material collected has shown that the port of the buyer had been shown as Switzerland whereas the goods have been exported to M/s. Hamlet International Plc, UK and M/s. What Everyone Wants Ltd. , Glasgow, UK by using the forged/ false documents. The original GR-1 Forms pertaining to these exports available with the Reserve Bank of India revealed that in the original forms the address of the consignee/buyer is mentioned as "what Everyone Wants, 296, Springfield Road, Glasgow, G-40, 3-HZ, Switzerland" as against the destination of export in the duplicate GR-I forms used for export shown is "united Kingdom". ( 12 ). Apparently, these goods have been exported on the basis of forged/false certificates of origin and other relevant documents. ( 13 ). These goods have been exported on FOB value and on the FOB value duty drawbacks as shown below have been realised. ( 14 ). The duty drawback of Rs. 1,73,448. 00 has thus been drawn by the exporter M/s. Manik Enterprises from the Delhi Customs on the basis of false and fabricated documents thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to itself. ( 15 ). Mr. ( 14 ). The duty drawback of Rs. 1,73,448. 00 has thus been drawn by the exporter M/s. Manik Enterprises from the Delhi Customs on the basis of false and fabricated documents thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to itself. ( 15 ). Mr. Harish Narayan Singhani is the proprietor of M/s. Manik Enterprises and Mrs. Monika Harish Singhani who is his wife is proprietor of M/s. Kapil Products. ( 16 ). Mr. Navinsharma, Director of M/s. Shine Air Cargo (Pvt.) Ltd. was the subagent of the cargo house agent. ( 17 ). Apparently, these persons had entered into conspiracy in exporting goods illegally and unauthorisedly by committing forgery, have wrongfully drawn duty drawbacks and thereby having cheated the Government. ( 18 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the foolproof procedure prescribed for obtaining certificate from AEPC, preparing export documents by the exporter and their scrutiny and checking by various agencies at the port of export leave no scope for goods being exported illegally or any document being forged; and that in this case also the documents have been issued by AEPC and have been checked by various concerned authorities and as such there is no question of forging any documents or cheating by the petitioners. ( 19 ). Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that this plea of the petitioners is misconceived as the goods have been actually exported on the basis of forged and fabricated documents as a result of conspiracy hatched between the two petitioners and the Custom House agent and perhaps also by concerned officials of the authorities responsible for checking the documents and giving clearance for export and that for the complicity of those other officers of various agencies involved further investigation is still in progress and a supplementary report under Section 173 (8) of the Code will be submitted after the investigation is complete. It is also contended that if bail is granted to the petitioners it will thwart a proper and fair investigation of a well orchastrated conspiracy and that even otherwise it is not in the interest of administration of justice nor in public interest to admit the petitioners to bail. ( 20 ). It is also contended that if bail is granted to the petitioners it will thwart a proper and fair investigation of a well orchastrated conspiracy and that even otherwise it is not in the interest of administration of justice nor in public interest to admit the petitioners to bail. ( 20 ). The investigations made and material collected by CBI shows that the goods of the category and value as mentioned above have been exported on the basis of the documents noticed above and that on the basis of these documents and certificates duty drawback amounting to Rs. 1,73,448. 00 has been realised by the petitioners from the Customs authorities through their banks. ( 21 ). The procedure for obtaining certificates for entitlement for export, and for exporting the goods has been prescribed in the Export Policy declared by the Government. An exporter has to apply to AEPC for entitlement certificate for each category of restricted goods with quantity to be exported to the countries of foreign buyer who on verification issues certificate entitling an exporter to export specific quantity and goods. Then on the basis of orders received from the foreign buyer, the exporter approaches AEPC with relevant documents of export namely, invoice (6 copies), GR Form declaration (2 copies), shipping bills (6 copies ). The AEPC processes the documents and after verifying the correctness thereof prepares visa in triplicate. One carbon copy each of Visa, invoice and shipping bill is retained by AEPC and other documents are returned to the exporter. The exporter submits the original visa with copies of registration certificate, invoice and shipping bill for verification and clearance and representatives of Textile Committee, EOK, New Delhi, Customs and AEPC who have their offices at the port of export give clearance for the export and after verification and clearance the following documents are returned to the exporter. (A) Original visa. (b) 4 copies of invoice. (c) I copy of GRI form. (d) 4 copies of shipping bills. ( 22 ). Customs Department retains one copy each of invoice, shipping bill, visa and the original GR-1 form. The exporter sends the original visa with the invoice and packing list to overseas buyer. ( 23 ). Original Visa certificates issued by AEPC would be available with the exporter or his buyer of the goods. ( 22 ). Customs Department retains one copy each of invoice, shipping bill, visa and the original GR-1 form. The exporter sends the original visa with the invoice and packing list to overseas buyer. ( 23 ). Original Visa certificates issued by AEPC would be available with the exporter or his buyer of the goods. GR-1 Forms available with Reserve Bank of India would contain the particulars of the genuine certificates issued by AEPC and which primafacie suggest that the goods have been exported by the petitioners on the basis of forged and fabricated certificates and Visa of AEPC and by use of such forged documents not only restricted category of goods have been illegally exported but wrongful gain has been derived by the petitioners and wrongful loss has been caused to the Government by claiming duty drawback. CBI has collected some of duplicate forged documents sent for export purpose. ( 24 ). One of the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. An order under Section 438 being an exceptional type there must be a special case made out for passing such an order. It should not be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation or to prejudice the investigation. ( 25 ). In Pokarram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969 , regarding the scope of Section 438 it was observed as under : "relevant considerations governing the Court s decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher Court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. " ( 26 ). In The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Anr. , JT 1997 (8) SC 382=iv (1997) CCR 168 (SC), disapproving the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail in a case involving conspiracy, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed that: ". . . It is disquieting that implications of arming respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. . . It is disquieting that implications of arming respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if respondents are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. . . . "( 27 ). Prima facie offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code has been made out against both the petitioners. Investigations are not yet complete and further investigations are stated to be in progress. Public exchequer has been cheated of huge funds and thus public interest is involved. Grant of anticipatory bail would not be proper and justified nor any exceptional circumstances are shown to circumvent the normal procedure of arrest and investigation. Anticipatory bail would thwart and prejudice fair investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not found it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. In the facts and circumstances, it neither seems just and proper nor in larger public interest to admit the petitioner Mrs. Monika H. Singhani to anticipatory bail. ( 28 ). Against Harish Narayan Singhani also prima facie there is material showing his involvement for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471, IPC. The offences committed have great repercussions affecting the public exchequer. The offence is grave and serious. Further investigation should be made unhampered. ( 29 ). Taking into consideration, the nature and gravity of offence and the public interest, it is not just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.