JUDGMENT Sujit Barman Roy, J. 1. By this application under Section 438 Cr. P.C., petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail as he apprehends arrest in connection with South Post Police Station Case No. 382 of 1998 under Sections 120B/420/468/471/477A I.P.C. 2. Petitioner is stated to be an employee in the Accounts Department of the Time Office of Hindustan Lever Limited now posted at 83, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-700 024. 3. Case of the petitioner is that Hindustan Lever Employees' Co-operative Credit Society was formed by the employees of the said company and its affairs are being managed by the representatives of the worders thereof elected periodically. Being requested, petitioner assisted the said Society to prepare its balance-sheet along with its auditors and others. 4. One Sidharta Tuli being the Chairman of the said Society lodged a complaint on 24.11.98 at the said police station against petitioner and others and the same was registered as FIR under the aforesaid penal provisions of law. In the said complaint it was, inter alia, alleged that petitioner was responsible for processing the cheques and disbursement of loan to the members of the Co-operative Society; fifty-two payment vouchers processed by him during February, April and December of 1997 and January and September of 1998 which disclosed various discrepancies in the nature of wrong opening balances and partial or no updation in personal ledger; dishonest manipulation of account for wrongful payments and by such acts petitioner in connivance with others misappropriated a sum of Rupees 38,27,425/-. Similar allegations for alleged misappropriation of huge of sums of money were also made against others. Various other allegations were made in the said complaint. In short it is alleged that something around Rs. 56,56,973/- was misappropriated defalcated by the petitioner and others. On the basis of the said complaint an FIR being the aforesaid case was registered at the said police station. Therefore, petitioner is now apprehending that he may be arrested by the police at any moment and accordingly, he has prayed for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard Mr. S. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N.N. Gooptu, learned Advocate General being assisted by learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has nothing to say so far as merit is concerned. 5. I have heard Mr. S. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. N.N. Gooptu, learned Advocate General being assisted by learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has nothing to say so far as merit is concerned. However, in view of health condition of the petitioner, he submits that petitioner must be given anticipatory bail as petitioner cannot move about without assistance of a helper. In support of his contention various documents were produced before us to show that he suffered serious fracture in his ankle and, therefore, without assistance of helper it will not be possible for him to move about. Such helper may not be available in the prison if he is arrested and remanded to custody. He has also produced a Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M.S. Ghosh. It has been certified by Dr. Ghosh that the petitioner was admitted at Kothari Medical Centre under his care from 8.12.99 to 28.12.99. He was advised bed rest for two months with effect from 28.12.99. He was further advised not to move outside his house. Relying upon the said certificate and other medical papers produced before us, Mr. Bose learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at least on humanitarian ground petitioner should be given anticipatory bail. It is true that from the medical papers it appears that the petitioner suffered fracture of both bones on his left leg on 20.11.99. Said fracture extended from the illegible downwards into the ankle joint with a number of small intraarticular fragments as well as fracture of the medial mallcolus also. It was stated to be a case of a bad continued fracture. It further appears that after the petitioner sustained the said injury, he was admitted in Divine Nursing Home on 20.11.99 itself and there was an operation of his ankle at the Divine Nursing Home on 21.11.99. On 28.11.99 petitioner was discharged from Divine Nursing Home. However, on that very day petitioner was again admitted in Jyotsnamoye Nursing Home and he had to undergo another operation at Divine Nursing Home on 4.12.99. Thereafter, he was again admitted at Kothari Medical Centre on 8.12.99. He had a third o' operation at Kothari Medical Centre on 10.12.99. Again on 13.12.99 petitioner had to undergo fourth operation and thereafter on 28.12.99 he was discharged from the Kothari Medical Centre. Thereafter, he was again admitted at Kothari Medical Centre on 8.12.99. He had a third o' operation at Kothari Medical Centre on 10.12.99. Again on 13.12.99 petitioner had to undergo fourth operation and thereafter on 28.12.99 he was discharged from the Kothari Medical Centre. 7. While opposing this application for anticipatory bail, learned Advocate General referred to a decision of the Apex Court in State represented by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 Cr. LJ 4414, and contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary to recover the money defalcated/misappropriated by the petitioner. An interrogation when an accused is not in custody is not that effective like an interrogation when an accused is in custody. It is true it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Sharma that in cases of this nature effective interrogation of the suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected persons knows that he is well protected and insulated by pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. Learned Advocate General further referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Dukhishyam vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria, 1998 Cr. LJ 841. In this case Supreme Court observed that contention that an accused is a sick person is not enough to claim pre-arrest bail order. Hence, the Apex Court declined to go into the dispute whether the accused was suffering from any such health condition. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the medical papers produced by the petitioner before the Court were all issued by private nursing home/private doctors. Petitioner can be treated and examined in Woodburn Ward, S.S.K.M. Hospital, Calcutta while keeping him in custody thereunder the police guard as to whether due to such injury petitioner is so disabled that he needs a helper. If it is really found that in fact petitioner has suffered such injury and he needs complete bed rest for his recovery and he needs assistance of a helper, he can be kept and given complete treatment and bed rest in the Woodburn Ward, S.S.K.M. Hospital at the cost of the State. If it is really found that in fact petitioner has suffered such injury and he needs complete bed rest for his recovery and he needs assistance of a helper, he can be kept and given complete treatment and bed rest in the Woodburn Ward, S.S.K.M. Hospital at the cost of the State. State will provide him with helper during his hospitalization at the said Woodburn Ward at the cost of the State and there the petitioner can have complete bed rest. For shifting him from his residence to the Woodburn Ward, Government will take all care so that no harm or discomfort is caused to him and if necessary police will use wheel chair/stretcher and ambulance for the purpose of shifting him to hospital and petitioner will be allowed complete bed rest under the police guard during his hospitalization at the aforesaid hospital which is the premier Government hospital in the State. Petitioner will not be shifted at jail custody unless Medical Board certifies that he is fit to be so shifted. 8. In view of the aforesaid suggestion given by the learned Advocate General and in view of huge amount of money allegedly misappropriated/defalcated by the petitioner and others, we are of the view that this application for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed. However, if police wants to arrest the petitioner, petitioner shall be first shifted to Woodburn Ward of the said S.S.K.M. Hospital. He shall be shifted to the hospital without causing any discomfort to the petitioner and during his stay in the said Woodburn Ward, petitioner shall be provided with helper round the clock and all medical assistance at the cost of the State as may be advised by a Medical Board to be constituted by the Superintendent of S.S.K.M. Hospital. If the said Medical Board, as may be constituted by the Superintendent thereof, certifies that petitioner can safely be taken to jail custody, all concerned shall act accordingly. However, until and unless such Medical Board give such certificate, petitioner will not be shifted from the Woodburn Ward of the Hospital. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody within the meaning of Section 167 Cr. P.C. since he is shifted to the Woodburn Ward of the said hospital and it shall be open to the Investigating Agency to post appropriate police guard so that he may not abscond. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody within the meaning of Section 167 Cr. P.C. since he is shifted to the Woodburn Ward of the said hospital and it shall be open to the Investigating Agency to post appropriate police guard so that he may not abscond. After the Medical Board gives such certificate that it is no longer unsafe to shift the petitioner to judicial custody, it shall be open to the concerned Magistrate to remand the petitioner to custody upon his production before such Magistrate. 9. Subject to aforesaid directions, this petition for anticipatory bail is rejected. Let plain copy of this order duly countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel for both sides, as prayed for. I agree.