JUDGMENT M. PAPANNA, J. — This is an application for an anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners before this Court for invoking its jurisdiction under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Facts of the case relevant for the purpose of its adju¬dication are delineated concisely hereunder : 3. At Bhubaneswar there is an Institute known as Xavier Institute of Management (in short, ‘the Institute’). It is a Centre for Development Research and Training (in short, the ‘CENDERET’). One Miss. Bharati Ray (in short, ‘the victim’) happens to be a Senior Programme Manager of the Institute. Peti¬tioner No. 1, D. N. Rao (in short, ‘Mr. Rao') acts as a co-ordinator of the Institute. Petitioner No. 2 Mrs. Swapna Harison is his Secretary whereas petitioner No. 3, Dr. Latha Rabinderan is the Professor of the said Institute. The victim alleges a series of incidents of sexual harassment and misbehaviour meted out to her by Mr. Rao, He addresses her always openly as well as in official discussions as “you are just like use and throw pen, rotten apple and rotten fish”. He, in a discussion, accused her once, saying that when she was proceeding on leave she was spend¬ing time with Director and keeping illicit relationship. On many occasions he directed her to stay in the office beyond office hours and also come to office on holidays. On protest, he direct¬ed her to go to distant places like Koraput or Malkangiri even if there was no need to go there and particularly when other male colleagues in the office are sitting idle. After publication of news regarding sexual harassment caused by him to other lady employees of the Institute in newspapers like ‘Adhikar’ and ‘Pratishruti’, he passed indecent and filthy remarks like ‘you bloody idiot hand in glove with this publication”. He has also sent a number of times, some letters containing a lot of sexually coloured languages and then wiped out immediately. He has ap¬pealed her a number of times for his lust for sex. And for having failed in his attempts, he officially puts her to a number of difficulties. Whenever, he comes to her single room at CENDERET BUILDING he always sits close to her in spite of her objections. He has touched her body a number of times on the pretext of seeing her necklace or how she wears her saree. And for having failed in his attempts, he officially puts her to a number of difficulties. Whenever, he comes to her single room at CENDERET BUILDING he always sits close to her in spite of her objections. He has touched her body a number of times on the pretext of seeing her necklace or how she wears her saree. He talks always regarding sex and sexual objects of lady members, thereby creat¬ing a lot of embarrassment for her. On protest he becomes violent and with grudge tries to put her to a lot of difficulties during official transaction. He threatened to evaluate here performance and C.C.R. as poor and transfer her to Koraput or Keonjhar. Sometimes he has threatened her to remove from service with the help of Director of the Institute. Though she reported to the previous Director regarding the aforesaid misdeeds of Mr. Rao but in vain. At last she intimated the said Director about her trauma and harassment through her lawyer but of no use. Though on 26.6.2000 he wrote her a letter stating that he would take care of her case for further action but at the same time he had sent another envelope containing a nude picture of a lady-super-imposing her official photo with it. In the said envelope the Director has written in his own hand as “Ms. Bharati Ray, DENDER¬ET” at the back of the semi nude picture. The Director (GYANERA¬THINAM) has written in his own hand as “to his daughter from Gautam Budha”. The said Director was removed from the post of Director by the Governing Body of the Institute and in his place the present Director has joined. So at last out of fear of suspension and removal from service she brought a writ in O.J.C. No. 6555 of 2000 before this Court to issue direction to the State Government to provide her protection from being sexually harassed by the petitioners and to cause enquiry into her allega¬tions and take appropriate action against the perpetrators. It is alleged by her that during pendency of the writ application petitioner No. 3 at the direction of Mr. Rao pressurised her to withdraw the same. She also threatened her with dire consequences if she does not agree to her suggestions. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 pressurised her to withdraw her case from the High Court. It is alleged by her that during pendency of the writ application petitioner No. 3 at the direction of Mr. Rao pressurised her to withdraw the same. She also threatened her with dire consequences if she does not agree to her suggestions. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 pressurised her to withdraw her case from the High Court. She has also threatened her to beat with chapples unless she agrees to her suggestions. It is also alleged that Mr. Rao is always giving threats to her life and properties for which she is passing her days with apprehension and fear. The victim further alleges that on 25.1.2001 Mr. Rao, scolded her through inter-com phone saying “you are a prostitute. How long you will survive I will see. Your days are numbered”. On her information with the aforesaid allegations Chandrasekharpur P. S. Case No. 64 of 2001 under Sec. 294/354/500/506/509/34, I.P.C. was registered and investigation of the case is now in progress for which the peti¬tioners are apprehending their arrest by the police. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is made by them with a prayer to admit them to bail in the event of their arrest by the police. 4. In this case the petitioners are represented through their counsel, Shri Ashok Kumar Mohanty. Learned Advocate Shri. N. C. Panigrahi is appearing for the victim and the Additional Standing Counsel is representing the State. The petitioners' counsel submits that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and frivolous. According to him, the allegations as reflected in the F. I. R. do not constitute the offences in the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended by him that the victim claims for her promotion and as she was not found suitable for promotion she is making various allegations falsely in the colour of sexual harassment against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the victim, on the other hand, vehemently opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. He relies on a series of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble apex Court in support of his contentions. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State has rendered assistance to this Court by supplying the case diary during the course of hearing on the matter. 5. Provision of Sec. 438, Cr. He relies on a series of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble apex Court in support of his contentions. The learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State has rendered assistance to this Court by supplying the case diary during the course of hearing on the matter. 5. Provision of Sec. 438, Cr. P.C. which empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest is quoted below : “(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. XX XX XX XX” 6. The above provision of law as contemplated under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. is very clear. It says that an applicant seeks for anticipatory bail when he apprehends his arrest on the accusation that he has committed a non-bailable offence. It gives a very wide discretion to the High Court as well as the Court of Session to exercise while dealing with anticipatory bail. The discretion has to be exercised very cautiously and judiciously but not with whims and caprice. Therefore, in exceptional cases only, this extraordinary power conferred by Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. has to be invoked. Thus, the Court has to bear in mind a basic principle while allowing or rejecting a prayer for anticipatory bail. The principle is, every individual has a right to his personal liberty. When it is curtailed or in jeopardy he has a remedy under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. Such an individual is entitled to the benefit or presumption of innocence, since on the date of making application for anticipatory bail he is not convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. In the background of the facts of the case keeping in mind, the aforesaid basic principle, hearing at length the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am called upon to adjudicate the application for anticipatory bail. 7. In the background of the facts of the case keeping in mind, the aforesaid basic principle, hearing at length the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am called upon to adjudicate the application for anticipatory bail. 7. I have gone through the F.I.R. lodged by the victim alleging that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention have subjected her to sexual harassment and misbeha¬viour for which she brought a writ in O.J.C. No. 6555 of 2000 before this Court, who while deciding the said writ application came to hold that there is no complaints committee legally con¬stituted by the Institute in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex Court in AIR 1997 S.C. 3011 (Vishaka and others vrs. State of Rajasthan and others) and therefore, the opp. parties were directed to constitute such a committee in terms of the said guidelines. The committee has to look into the allegations of sexual harassment and to find out whether such allegations con¬stitute sexual harassment or not ? When the committee examines the victim’s allegations she can adduce evidence before the committee to substantiate the same. After the committee submits enquiry report in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex Court holding that allegations made by the victim are found to be correct, then only action should be taken against the offenders. 8. Shri N. C. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the victim has referred to AIR 1999 S.C. 625 (Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra), wherein the apex Court has ruled that High Court should not normally interfere with either the factual findings regarding guilt or with penalty or punishment imposed by departmental authorities. In the re¬ported case the delinquent, a superior officer was found guilty of molesting and of having tried to physically assault a subordi¬nate female employee. On such findings, the departmental authori¬ties awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. The Delhi High Court interfered with the said order of punishment of dis¬missal on the ground that since delinquent had not “actually molested” and had "not managed" to make physical contact with her, the punishment of removal from service was not justified. But the apex Court reversed the order of the Delhi High Court. The apex Court has found that conduct of delinquent, a superior officer, was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to female subordinate’s modesty. But the apex Court reversed the order of the Delhi High Court. The apex Court has found that conduct of delinquent, a superior officer, was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to female subordinate’s modesty. It is held, for mere want of actual assault or touch by delinquent, his conduct does not cease to be outrageous and it amounts to sexual harassment, Shri Panigrahi, being fortified with this ruling contends that in the case at hand Mr. Rao has actually molested the victim with whom he made physical contact and misbehaved with her in differ¬ent manner for which his conduct amounts to sexual harassment which is nothing but outrageous. 9. Shri. N.C. Panigrahi, while vehemently opposing to grant bail to the petitioners also relied on the decisions in Gurucharan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Sanjay Malho¬tra v. State of Punjab, both reported in 2000 Cr. L.J. at pages 4480 and 4481 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) and also Tarachand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 3764 (Himachal Pradesh High Court) in support of his contention. 10. I have carefully gone through the above rulings where facts of the reported cases are found quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In AIR 1999 S. C. 625 (supra) the respondent was placed under suspension. He was charge-sheeted. But he denied the allegations made against him. He asserted that the said allegations are imaginary and motivated. In the Depart¬mental proceeding drawn against him, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the charges framed against him. During enquiry, oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the sides. The Enquiry Officer basing on the documentary and oral evidence and the circumstances of the case held him guilty. Basing on his find¬ings, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removing him from service with immediate effect. However, in the present case a Complaints’ Committee was constituted on 23.9.1999. The Committee was consisted of seven members out of whom, five were ladies and it was headed by a woman. Admittedly, one of the women members of the Committee enquired into the allegations of the victim and submitted a report stating that the allegations made against Mr. Rao are not genuine. The Committee was consisted of seven members out of whom, five were ladies and it was headed by a woman. Admittedly, one of the women members of the Committee enquired into the allegations of the victim and submitted a report stating that the allegations made against Mr. Rao are not genuine. The victim filed a writ peti¬tion in O.J.C. No. 6555 of 2000 before this Court which held that though the above committee was constituted but it neither includes an N.G.O. nor a body familiar with the issue of sexual harassment in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex Court. Moreover, the Committee as a whole did not enquire into the allegations of the victim and instead a woman member of the Com¬mittee who is also an employee in the Institute and subordinate to Mr. Rao enquired into the allegations and submitted the re¬port. This Court did not accept the said report. It issued direc¬tions to the Institute for reconstituting the Complaints Commit¬tee by including either an NGO or other body familiar with the issue of sexual harassment of the victim to examine the allega¬tions and submit a report. The Institute was also directed to amend the Rules and Regulation relating to conduct and discipline of the employees and to provide for appropriate penalty in such a Rule against the offender in terms of the guidelines issued by the apex Court within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. This Court also instructed the Insti¬tute to take action against the offender in terms of Clauses IV and V of the Guidelines issued by the apex Court, if the Com¬plaints Committee finds the allegations made by the victim to be correct. Admittedly, the Complaints Committee was reconstituted as per the guidelines issue by the apex Court but during enquiry into the allegations of the victim, she did not adduce evidence on her behalf and instead she challenged the Complaints Committee on the ground that Mrs. Swapna Harisan and Mrs. Latha Ravindran should not have been included in the Committee as its members as they are the supporters of Mr. Rao and as such she would be highly prejudiced if the Committee is allowed to enquire into her allegations. That apart, she disputed inclusion of one Dr. Swapna Harisan and Mrs. Latha Ravindran should not have been included in the Committee as its members as they are the supporters of Mr. Rao and as such she would be highly prejudiced if the Committee is allowed to enquire into her allegations. That apart, she disputed inclusion of one Dr. P. Jasodhara as third party member of the Committee as she is nei¬ther an NGO nor a body familiar with the issue of sexual harass¬ment. But the Complaints Committee headed by Mrs. Geeta Devi constituted on 20.1.2001 as per the direction of this Court enquired into the allegations of the victim as reflected in the writ application and lawyers notice. The victim’s oral evidence could not be recorded as she refused to adduce her oral evidence on the above ground. Statement of Ex. Director of the Institute and statement of Mr. Rao were recorded. The Committee after making analysis of victim’s various allegations as reflected in her complaints petition submitted its report on 13.3.2001 stating that her allegations are nothing but irrational allegations having no grain of truth. The Committee has opined that the allegations are totally false and fabricated. They are false, malicious and motivated to defame Mr. Rao. The Committee intimat¬ed her about the result of the enquiry with a warning that she should not make false allegations in future or else appropriate action shall be taken against her. Therefore, the victim had no alternative except lodging an FIR in question as contended by Mr. Panigrahi. 11. In the case of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra), the Apex Court has provided remedial measure to safeguard the interest of female employees at their work place against sexual harassment caused by the superior officers in the office. In the present case the Complaints Committee constituted in terms of the guidelines of the Apex Court has submitted its report after enquiring into the allegations of the victim holding that the allegations made by her are not correct and genuine. But now the bone of contention is if the allegations made by the victim constitute specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. 12. Shri. N. C. Panigrahi also contends that the conduct of the petitioners amounts to offences punishable under Secs. 294, 354, 500, 506 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. But now the bone of contention is if the allegations made by the victim constitute specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. 12. Shri. N. C. Panigrahi also contends that the conduct of the petitioners amounts to offences punishable under Secs. 294, 354, 500, 506 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the attention of the previous Director of the Institute was drawn to the illegal and objectionable conduct of the petitioners he did not initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority for which she was obliged to set the Criminal law into motion by lodging the F.I.R. in question before the Police authority. Referring to 1996 Cri. Law Journal, 381 (Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another) he has contended that in the Criminal proceeding initiated on her F.I.R. prima facie case is made out under Secs. 294, 354, 500, 506, 509 and 34, I.P.C. against the petitioners. According to him ingredients of all the aforesaid offences are present in the instant case and as such the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. In his opinion, it is clear case of outraging the modesty of women. In the reported case of Kanwarpal Singh Gill, the apex Court held that apart from the offence under Sec. 354, I.P.C. an offence under Sec. 509, I.P.C. has been made out on the allegation contained in the F.I.R. as the words used by Gesture made by Mr. Gill was intended to insult the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj. Their Lordships have ob¬served that Mr. Gill is a top-most official of the State Police indecently behaved with Mrs. Bajaj, a Senior Lady I.A.S. Officer in the presence of Gentry and in spite of her raising objection continued with his such behavior. According to their Lordships, offence relating to modesty of women is not a trivial offence. 13. In the reported case of 2000 Cri. L.J. 4480 and 2000 Cri.L.J. 4481 (supra) Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to exercise jurisdiction of the Court under Sec. 438, Cr. According to their Lordships, offence relating to modesty of women is not a trivial offence. 13. In the reported case of 2000 Cri. L.J. 4480 and 2000 Cri.L.J. 4481 (supra) Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to exercise jurisdiction of the Court under Sec. 438, Cr. P.C. in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner because in the former case the petitioners tried to cheat the persons who belong to the weaker section of the society and matters are yet to be investigated whereas in the latter case there was serious allega¬tion of bigamy and cruelty made against the petitioner. On the other hand, in the case of Mr. Rupan Deol Bajaj and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, reported in 1996 Cri. L.J. 381 (S.C.) Mr. Gill not only behaved indecently and repeatedly with Mrs. Bajaj in spite of her protection in presence of other digni¬taries but also he slapped her on the posterior in the full presence of the ladies and gents. Here, undoubtedly intention or knowledge of the offender is the main ingredient of any offence and the same is to be proved like other ingredients for convict¬ing a person. At the same time, intention being state of mind has to be proved by direct evidence or it may have to be inferred from the attending circumstances of a given case. In the instant case, it is to be seen whether Mr. Rao intended to outrage her modesty or knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty. In the present case, the victim was no doubt at liberty to start a criminal proceeding also by the by against wrong doers. Immediately after the occurrence had she actually suffered humiliation because of the alleged sexual harassment and misbeha¬viour caused to her by Mr. Rao and others. For getting Mr. Rao punished by the disciplinary authority she brought a writ appli¬cation, but of no use. The Complaints Committee looked into her allegations of sexual harassment and reached a conclusion that she is making a false and fabricated allegation against the petitioners. Her allegations as reflected in the F.I.R. are not free from modification, exaggeration and embellishment, for which the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of presumption of innocence and moreover, on the date of making application for anticipatory bail they were not convicted for the offence in respect of which they seek bail. Her allegations as reflected in the F.I.R. are not free from modification, exaggeration and embellishment, for which the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of presumption of innocence and moreover, on the date of making application for anticipatory bail they were not convicted for the offence in respect of which they seek bail. In fact in the writ application in O.J.C. NO. 6555/2000 she has referred to letter dated 8.3.1999 on “International Women’s Day” addressed by her lady colleagues of the Institute to the Director indicating how they were sub¬jected to sexual harassment by Mr. Rao by not giving them promo¬tion. In their representation to the Director dated 8.3.1999 they have alleged that Mr. Rao made sexual coloured statement against them by commenting always that unmarried women staff are more competent than the married women staff. This does not actually amount to sexual harassment. 14. In the writ application it is mentioned that Mr. Rao unnecessarily and without any basis accused the victim in front of other that she is hand in glove with the publication of sexual harassment caused by him towards lady employees of the Institute when it was published in Newspapers “Adhikar” and “Pratishruti”. But in the F.I.R. in question the victim has added the words such as “you bloody idiot” to “hand in glove with this publication”. In the writ application, the allegation that he has appealed her a number of times for satisfying his lust for sex is not there but the same finds place in the F.I.R. Similarly in the writ application the allegations that he has touched her body a number of times on the pretext of seeing her necklace or how she wears her saree, is not there but it is there in the F.I.R. In the writ application it is mentioned that in a meeting on 5.6.2000 Mr. Rao made remarks against the victim that while she was staying on leave, she was frequently coming and passing time with the Direc¬tor whereas in F.I.R. she has mentioned the said remarks with addition of the words “keeping illicit relationship”. In the writ application, she has mentioned that Mr. Rao refers to the peti¬tioner and her lady colleagues such as “rotten apple”, rotten fish” and “use and throw pen” and the same is also mentioned in the FIR in an exaggerated manner as if specifically directed against her. 15. In the writ application, she has mentioned that Mr. Rao refers to the peti¬tioner and her lady colleagues such as “rotten apple”, rotten fish” and “use and throw pen” and the same is also mentioned in the FIR in an exaggerated manner as if specifically directed against her. 15. I have kept in view the scope of power of the Court under Sec. 438, Cr. P.C. coupled with the legislative intention behind such provision while adjudicating this application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. In the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632 : (1980 Cri. L.J. 1125) and subsequent three Judge Bench decision in the case of Poker Ram v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 969 : (1985 Cri.L.J. 1175) it is held that the Court should be loathe to exercise discretion and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the present case, I have found from the attending circumstances that prosecution has been launched by the victim by setting criminal law into motion after about an year of the occurrence with some addition or modification or embellishment in the prosecution case. In this regard, the intention of the legislature is very clear. There is a need for granting anticipatory bail. It arises mainly because the victim has tried to implicate the petitioners in criminal case for the purpose of degrading them or for other purposes by getting them detained in the jail custody. That apart, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners who are enti¬tled to the benefit of presumption of innocence of the accusation made in the FIR by the victim are entitled to anticipatory bail particularly when the nature of charge levelled against the petitioners are not free from doubt and also do not constitute specific offences under the Indian Penal Code. 16. With the aforesaid observation, I exercise my judicial discretion judiciously in favour of the petitioners while grant¬ing them anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of their arrest in Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No. 64/2001 they shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds for Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each with one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. The Criminal Case Misc. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of their arrest in Chandrasekharpur P.S. Case No. 64/2001 they shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds for Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each with one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. The Criminal Case Misc. Case is disposed of. Crl. Misc. Case disposed of.