JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Heard. For the reasons to believe that he might be arrested in a case FIR No. 17 dated 25.9.98 P.S.SVB(H) Rohtak, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Shri Dhani Ram, Executive Engineer working in Public Health, Design and Planning Division, Sonepat, has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court. It may be mentioned here that earlier the petitioner filed the application under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Special Judge, who for the reasons given in para No. 7, 8, and 9 of his order dated 20.9.1999, dismissed the application. Paras No. 7, 8 and 9 of the order dated 20.9.1999, are reproduced as under :- "7. It has been urged by Shri M.L. Verma, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused, that the enquiry officer has gravely erred in taking into account the income of the accused between the years 1988 to 1998 even as his client had joined service a couple of decades earlier. If the income of his entire service career is computed, no case would be made out against him. The second point urged by Mr. Verma is about the amount allowed by the enquiry officer towards income from agricultural land. The enquiry officer has allowed Rs. 3500/- per annum per acre even as the agricultural lands in Karnal are capable of fetching anything upto Rs. 7500/- per annum. Thirdly, Mr. Verma has urged that the stone crusher has been installed by the son of the accused and it would be absolutely unjustified to say that the property is owned Benami by the accused in the light of Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 253. 8. The enquiry officer has computed the income of the accused from all his known sources from the year 1988 to the year 1998 and similarly he has taken into account the amount spent by him during that period. The accused had joined the Public Health Department as Executive Engineer in the year 1988 at Sonepat and the enquiry officer was perfectly justified in taking into account the income of the accused from that year onwards which the accused was required to explain but he has not been able to lay sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer about any other legitimate income. In so far as the question of Benami transaction is concerned, the enquiry officer has correctly said that Hemant Chaudhary has raised a loan of Rs. 18.77 lacs from the bank but he has not been able to explain the sources from which he had raised the remaining amount of Rs. 21,23,000/-. The enquiry officer has concluded that his father accused Dhani Ram Chaudhary had made the amount available to his son. 9. Mr. M.L. Verma, Advocate, has relied upon reported case Maninder Singh Heera v. State of Punjab, 1998(4) Recent Criminal Reports 142 and Mathloob Abdul Gafoor Quresi v. State of Maharashtra, 1998(4) Recent Criminal Reports 734 and has urged that his client is making clean breast of the documents in his custody and he is ready to produce any record which is required by the investigating agency and as such anticipatory bail should be granted to him. However, in the considered opinion of this Court the reported case law shall not apply to the facts of instant case. In Mathloob Abdul Gafoor Qureshis case (supra) there was a family settlement and the accused was alleged to have forged documents. A complaint was thus registered against him under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code whereas in Maninder Singh Heeras case (supra) the Additional Deputy Commissioner had enquired into the allegations against the accused and a corruption case had been registered against him. The accused had placed before the enquiry officer all material documents with regard to the commission of the offence. However, in the instant case the enquiry officer says that the accused has been playing hide and seek with the investigation agency. His custody is required for further investigation in the matter so that report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code could be prepared expeditiously. He has also urged that this is not the only case under the Corruption (Act) pending against the accused but he has been named as an accused in more cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been urged that the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused at this stage would prejudice the interests of prosecution and justice would suffer". 2. Inspector Hari Chand of the State Vigilance Bureau, District Sonepat, was entrusted to conduct the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner that he amassed wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income. It has been urged that the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused at this stage would prejudice the interests of prosecution and justice would suffer". 2. Inspector Hari Chand of the State Vigilance Bureau, District Sonepat, was entrusted to conduct the enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner that he amassed wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income. This enquiry was also against S.D.O. and one Junior Engineer. The Police Inspector concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against the Sub Divisional Officer and the Junior Engineer but there were grounds to register a criminal case against the petitioner Shri Dhani Ram Chaudhary, Executive Engineer, Public Health, Sonepat. 3. During the course of the preliminary inquiry, it was found that Shri Dhani Ram Chaudhary was appointed as Executive Engineer in the Public Health Department in the year 1988. He had purchased plot No. 1220, in Sector 17 at Jagadhri for a consideration of Rs. 70,000/- only. He had then constructed a building over that plot, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 4,59,000/- by a firm called Yamuna Engineering Architect and Consultant, Yamuna Nagar. A sum of Rs. 85,000/- was available with the accused in bank balance. This amount came to Rs. 5,44,000/- in all, whereas the income after deducting 40 per cent of the amount comes to Rs. 2,57,410/- from the salary. The accused represented before the police that he had withdrawn a sum of rupees one lac from the G.P.F. fund and rupees two lacs from the State Government but he failed to produce any document in support of his contention before the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer further relied upon the entries made in the Fard Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 and allowed the income of Rs. 35,000/- per annum from agricultural land between the years 1988 to 1998. He thus added Rs. 3.5 lacs towards income of the accused. 4. During the course of inquiry, it further came to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner has a son of the name of Hemant Chaudhary who has installed a stone crusher worth Rs. 40 lacs near Yamunanagar. Mr. Hemant Chaudhary had raised a loan of Rs. 18,77,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala but the remaining amount of Rs. 40 lacs near Yamunanagar. Mr. Hemant Chaudhary had raised a loan of Rs. 18,77,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala but the remaining amount of Rs. 21,23,000/- could not be explained by him and the enquiry officer arrived at the conclusion that accused Dhani Ram Chaudhary had made available to his son the amount of Rs. 21,23,000/- from the illegal wealth assessed (amassed ?) by him through unfair means. It was concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the accused had thus clearly assessed wealth to the tune of Rs. 18,29,590/- only beyond his known sources of income. On these broad allegations, the present FIR has been registered. 5. I have heard Shri S.P. Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the file of this case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1994 SC 1349, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1999(3) RCR 676, P. Nallammal v. State rep. by Inspector of Police; AIR 1980 SC 1632, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab, and submitted that it is a fit case where the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail. He also stated that the petitioner has retired from service as back as in the year 1998 and after a lapse of 2 years no criminal case should be registered against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the guidelines laid down by the various Courts for allowing or disallowing the anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered all the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in my opinion the case of custodial interrogation in public interest is made out against the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. It is in the public interest that when serious allegations against the public servant are levelled, such public servant should be interrogated in custody as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in State Rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT 1997(7) SC 651, where it was observed as follows :- "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT 1997(7) SC 651, where it was observed as follows :- "We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. 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 to 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. High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. Learned Single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that "it is well settled that bail and not jail is a normal Rule". The above observations are more germane while considering an application for post-arrest bail. Consideration which should weigh with the Court while dealing with a request for anticipatory bail need not be the same as for an application to release on bail after arrest. At any rate learned Single Judge ought not have side-stepped the apprehension expressed by the CBI (that respondent would influence the witnesses) as one which can be made against all accused persons in all cases. The apprehension was quite reasonable when considering the high position which respondent held and in the nature of accusation relating to a period during which he held such office". 8. Reliance can also be placed on a case reported as R.K. Ranga v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 611, Harish Jain v. State and others, 1994(3) RCR 405, K.B. Sharma v. State of U.T., 1998(3) RCR(Criminal) 779 and K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 419. 9. 8. Reliance can also be placed on a case reported as R.K. Ranga v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) Recent C.R. 611, Harish Jain v. State and others, 1994(3) RCR 405, K.B. Sharma v. State of U.T., 1998(3) RCR(Criminal) 779 and K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, 1998(2) RCR(Criminal) 419. 9. Even the judgments which have been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, go against the petitioner. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbias case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as follows :- "We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the ground that after all "the legislature in its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom, if they are liable to be corrected". 10. We all know that the power under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code is supposed to be exercised exceptionally and in rare of the rarest cases. The latest trend of the judgment is that in such cases custodial interrogation should be given to the Investigating Officer so that he may be able to arrive at a logical conclusion under what circumstances, disproportionate assets have been collected by a public servant and beyond his known sources. Any ring of security evading from custodial interrogation will furnish an additional advantage to the accused who may not divulge correct information and source to the Investigating Officer. 11. Vide my order dated 11.2.2000 passed in Crl. Misc. Any ring of security evading from custodial interrogation will furnish an additional advantage to the accused who may not divulge correct information and source to the Investigating Officer. 11. Vide my order dated 11.2.2000 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 2276-M of 2000 Siri Krishan Dass and others v. State of Haryana, I have noted all the objects and considerations for and against Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code 12. In this view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and the present petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.