JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard Mr. Maneshinde, Mr. S.S. Kantak and Ms. Rakhi Chodankar, learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 50/2001 and Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. S.S. Kantak and Ms. R.M. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 51/2001 and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the State. Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The first applicant is the Honorary Secretary, whereas the second applicant is the President of the Goa Cricket Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Association"). The Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its working/management is governed by the provisions of its bye-laws as amended and approved from time-to-time. Its affairs are managed by the Managing Committee consisting of 12 members headed by the President and other office bearers include two Vice Presidents, one Honorary Secretary, two Honorary Joint Secretaries, one Honorary Treasurer and five members and in addition, the patrons and life members are required to elect one member from amongst themselves on the Managing Committee. 3. The Board of Control for Cricket in India had allotted the Fifth and last One Day International Cricket game to be played between Australia and India on 6th April, 2001, to the Association. Accordingly, the Association with the co-operation of the Sports Authority of Goa, as well as the State Government had taken steps for the said match to be played at the Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium at Fatorda (Margao) and this Stadium was allowed to be used for this match by the Sports Authority. The sitting capacity of this Stadium is 27,300. For the management of this event various committees came to be constituted by the Association and the Tender Committee and the Finance Committee are relevant for the present considerations. The President and Secretary were members of the Tender Committee alongwith one Ramnath Shankar Das, who is the Honorary Treasurer of the Association. In the Finance Committee, there were six members, including the Honorary Secretary and Treasurer and the President was not in the said Committee. 4. Sometime in February, 2001, the said Association released an advertisement inviting tenders for the sale of tickets and 4 to 5 tenders were received. In the Finance Committee, there were six members, including the Honorary Secretary and Treasurer and the President was not in the said Committee. 4. Sometime in February, 2001, the said Association released an advertisement inviting tenders for the sale of tickets and 4 to 5 tenders were received. The highest tender was of rupees 68 lakhs, which was submitted by one Chinmay Fallary and his tender was accepted. He deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and entered into an agreement with the Association. In the meanwhile, the Association also had taken steps for printing of these tickets and the contract was allotted to M/s. Hitech Print Systems Ltd. at Hyderabad for printing of 10,250 complimentary passes and 18,750 paid tickets, thus making a total of 29,000. However, the printer had charged for the supply of only 27,250 tickets and treated the balance as complimentaries. 5. These paid tickets were handed over to the Contractor, i.e. Chinmay Fallary, from time-to- time and he had also remitted the contractural amount. The total amount paid by him as on 28th March, 2001 came to Rs. 65,77,000/- . The ticket denominations were Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 750, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- . All these tickets came to be handed over to the contractor from time to time by the end of March, 2001, except 4,200 tickets of Rs. 200/- denomination whereas, the complimentary passes were distributed by the association officials. The contractor had opened stalls at different places for sale of these tickets and these tickets of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 500/- denominations were sold out on 3rd April, 2001, itself. 6. It appears that on 5th April, 2001, one of the officials of the association lodged a complaint with the local police stating that some fake tickets for the match of 6th April, 2001, were circulated in the market and the code numbers thereof were also mentioned in the said complaint. When the match started on 6th April, 2001, it was noticed that a large number of ticket holders could not enter the stadium as it was already packed to its capacity. This resulted in a commotion and the police had to take necessary measures to ensure that the match went on well and without any disturbances. The commotion also resulted in lathi charge by the police to control the crowd and disperse it. This resulted in a commotion and the police had to take necessary measures to ensure that the match went on well and without any disturbances. The commotion also resulted in lathi charge by the police to control the crowd and disperse it. On the same day; complaints of fake tickets having been sold in the market started pouring in and Mr. U.Y. Raut Dessai, Police Inspector from the Margao Town Police Station registered a complaint against unknown culprits for offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police machinery swung in action for investigations as the issue of fake tickets having been sold in the market and large number of genuine ticket holders did not get entry into the stadium, flared up and there was a public hue and cry. In the process of these investigations, the police had recorded the statements of the ticket sale contractor, as well as some other individuals who had apparently been sold fake tickets. In addition, the statements of some of the association officials were also recorded. The contractor Mr. Fallary was taken into custody on 9th April, 2001 and his house was searched on the next day. The association offices at Margao Stadium as well as at Panaji were sealed on 7th April, 2001. Mr. Ramnath Shankar Das's house was searched on 9th April, 2001 and he was arrested on the next day. On 10th April, 2001, there were three more persons taken into custody, namely Gangaram Bhise, Jairaj Ramaswamy and Devdatta Fallary and on the next day, i.e. 11th April, 2001, Eknath Naik, the brother-in-law of the President of the Association was taken into custody for interrogation. 7. On 13th April, 2001, summons were issued to the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 51/2001 to remain present for interrogation on the next day and he approached the Sessions Court on or about 16th April, 2001 for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the same day, the learned Sessions Judge gave interim directions not to arrest him. On the next day i.e. on 17th April, 2001, the Secretary (applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 50/2001), also moved an application for anticipatory bail and no interim directions were given. By order dated 21st April, 2001, these applications have been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, and hence these Criminal Misc. Applications. On the next day i.e. on 17th April, 2001, the Secretary (applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 50/2001), also moved an application for anticipatory bail and no interim directions were given. By order dated 21st April, 2001, these applications have been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, and hence these Criminal Misc. Applications. On the same day, the learned Sessions Judge by a separate order stayed his order rejecting the anticipatory bail applications, till 5 p.m. on 23rd April, 2001. The learned Sessions Judge, Margao, after hearing the respective parties and considering the say of the investigating agency has held that the custodial interrogation of the applicants was warranted. 8. The first applicant has submitted that in response to the summons issued by the police under section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he remained present before the police on 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, and 17th April, 2001 and on 14th April, 2001, his statement was recorded by the Police. He came to be admitted in the Intensive Care Unit at Vrindavan Hospital at Mapusa on 15th April, 2001 and was discharged on the next day. He received a fresh summons to appear before the police on 17th April, 2001 and his residence as well as shop premises were searched by the police and nothing incriminating was found. He faced a serious apprehension of being arrested by the police, and, therefore, he approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. It is his contention that he had nothing to do with the alleged instances of fake tickets being sold in the market for the one day international match played on 6th April, 2001, and when the association officials came to know about these instances a complaint was already lodged on 5th April, 2001, requesting the police to take immediate steps. He also stated that whenever he was called for interrogation, he has extended his full co-operation and at no point of time he has avoided the summons or did not remain present before the police for interrogation. He also gave an undertaking that he would remain present before the police as and when called upon and extend full co-operation for conclusion of these investigations. He, therefore, prays that there is no case for his custodial interrogation, specially when he is in no way connected with the alleged racket of fake tickets. 9. He also gave an undertaking that he would remain present before the police as and when called upon and extend full co-operation for conclusion of these investigations. He, therefore, prays that there is no case for his custodial interrogation, specially when he is in no way connected with the alleged racket of fake tickets. 9. The second applicant claims that apart from his being President of the association, he has a long-standing political career and has been member of the Legislative Assembly for more than 16 years. He has also held various high positions in the Government of Goa as Cabinet Minister and Deputy Chief Minister. He was also the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly from 1984 to 1989. Though the match was conducted successfully on 6th April, 2001, the State of Goa has earned a bad name because of the sale of forged tickets in the market and the persons who had purchased genuine tickets could not enter the stadium and enjoy the match. He had no role whatsoever in the alleged crime of printing, procuring and selling of these forged tickets and the press as well as the State Administration has focused their attention on him in view of his political standing. To settle the political scores, the police are determined to take him into custody at the instance of the State Administration and, therefore, apprehending his arrest, he had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. In support of his bail plea he has contended that he cannot be held liable vicariously for the alleged forged tickets at the hands of the contractor or some other persons, the sale of tickets was entirely the responsibility of the contractor and the association had nothing to do once the tickets were handed over to the said contractor, the members of the association had made complaints in writing with the police authorities on 3rd as well as on 5th April, 2001, regarding the forged tickets being circulated in the market and in furtherance of the said complaints no preventive measures were taken by the concerned agencies. The State Administration is determined to malign his political career by fixing the blame on him in order to dilute the failure on its part in taking adequate steps to avoid alleged instances of fake tickets being circulated in the market. The State Administration is determined to malign his political career by fixing the blame on him in order to dilute the failure on its part in taking adequate steps to avoid alleged instances of fake tickets being circulated in the market. He has been available for interrogation by the police as and when called upon and he has replied to the queries or questions put up to him during these interrogations and in any case and when he is called upon, he will undertake to remain present and will nor abscond or otherwise misuse the liberty while on bail and there is no justification for custodial interrogation, urged the applicant. 10. The State has opposed the applications for bail by filing specific reply before the Sessions Court as well as before this Court. The State has denied allegations that the President is being framed deliberately or to settle political scores and if that was the case the police could have arrested him on the very next day or, at least on 14th April, 2001. That the police have not resorted to any such action by itself shows that the investigating agency is acting on its own and as required in law. The applicants have been giving evasive replies during the course of interrogations and in the case of the President he hardly remains present when called for interrogation and, on occasions he either gets admitted in the hospital, or remains absent for interrogation on the pretext that he had to go out of station. The State emphasizes the necessity for custodial interrogation to unearth/unravel the conspiracy behind the racket of forged tickets having been sold in the market for the match played on 6th April, 2001 and this instance has wider ramifications involving larger public interest as well as the State and national pride. 11. A perusal of the record as placed before me, makes out some of the following accusations against the applicants:- (a) The tender for the sale of contract was issued to Chinmay, Fallary illegally, suspiciously and for a bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was received by Ramnath Shankar Das, Honorary Treasurer on behalf of the members of the Tender Committee, which included only the applicants and the said Treasurer. 2,00,000/-, which was received by Ramnath Shankar Das, Honorary Treasurer on behalf of the members of the Tender Committee, which included only the applicants and the said Treasurer. (b) Undue favours were shown to the Contractor by not insisting on bank guarantees even after allotment of the tender and these favours were shown for considerations, namely he agreed to hand over some tickets for sale to Novelty Sports, which is run by Shri Eknath Naik, the brother-in-law of the President. (c) Some tickets were sold at a premium and there was black marketing of these tickets. (d) In addition to the original order placed for printing of tickets, the treasurer had issued fresh orders for printing of about 1100 tickets to a local agency and this was intended for circulation of additional tickets at higher prices. (e) The tickets which were printed as per the original order were not handed over to the contractor in its entire lot and the tickets which were retained with the association were circulated in the market at the instance and through the persons of the choice of the officials and these tickets were sold at a premium and the applicants were involved in all these acts. 12. Before I deal with the other allegations/accusations made against the applicants, it must be noted at the threshold that none of these charges warrant custodial interrogation of any of the applicants. All these charges relate to mismanagement of the activities of the association, which is an independent legal entity governed by the provisions of its bye-laws and it is the association which is required to take cognizance of these accusations and take appropriate steps to set its house in order. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has pointed out that the association has recently amended its bye-laws and the entire Managing Committee is nominated by the President and, therefore, the Managing Committee which is responsible to take much measures is virtually the President himself. It is true that the bye-laws have been amended and the selection of the office bearers, namely the Vice-President, Honorary Secretary, Honorary Treasurer and Joint Secretary, is by nomination by the President from amongst the Managing Committee members, who are duly elected. It is true that the bye-laws have been amended and the selection of the office bearers, namely the Vice-President, Honorary Secretary, Honorary Treasurer and Joint Secretary, is by nomination by the President from amongst the Managing Committee members, who are duly elected. If this provision is inadequate to have control over the affairs of the Association, it was for the Registrar of Societies to take appropriate measures, including rejection of these amendments when they were submitted to his officer for approval/ratification. Nothing of that sort appears to have been done by the Registrar, who is the statutory authority entrusted with the responsibility of supervision and control over such societies. Unfortunately, during the last few decades the governance has decayed so much that the enforcing agencies or the supervisory agencies created by statutes have forgotten to act on their own and they do not act unless they are motivated or threatened by the executive action, the Court order, or the public pressure. Be that as it may, it is the Association alone which must take adequate steps to set its administration in order and display before the citizens of Goa that it is determined to cleanse its affairs. It may also be noted in this context that the F.I.R. which has been filed on 6th April, 2001, does not mention any of these accusations. It also must be kept in mind that the ticket sale contract was awarded to the highest bidder who was also awarded a similar contract during the December 1997 match allotted to the association and the contractor had remitted an amount of Rs. 65,77,000/- by 28th March, 2001 to the Association. 13. The record of investigation as placed before me, does make out a case of fake tickets having been printed, procured and sold in the market and that too in large quantities. The police claim that about 11,000 of such fake tickets have already been collected and the total number of such tickets could be around twenty one thousand or so. It is the case of the police that the officials of the Association are also involved in this racket, which has put the entire State in shame and, therefore, to unravel the truth they must be given a free hand for interrogation of all the officials, including the applicants. It is the case of the police that the officials of the Association are also involved in this racket, which has put the entire State in shame and, therefore, to unravel the truth they must be given a free hand for interrogation of all the officials, including the applicants. If the investigation is obstructed or is impeded for any reasons whatsoever, the larger public interest would be impaired and virtually defeated. They have reiterated that the applicants are not co-operating in the investigations and they are giving evasive replies as a result of which the investigation is not moving in the right direction and it is being delayed inordinately. 14. The fact remains that as at present, the Contractor Chinmay Fallary and the Treasurer Ramnath Shankar Das are in judicial custody and they were in police custody for two weeks. Their statements have been recorded before detention as well as after detention. Eknath Naik, who was also taken in custody has been released. Similarly, the other persons like Gangaram Bhise, Jairaj Ramaswamy and Devdatta Fallary have been released. One Venkat Raut Desai, who is also suspected to be involved is reportedly absconding and he is one of the associates of the contractor. It is, therefore, necessary to examine on the back drop of these events as to whether the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the custodial interrogation of the applicants was required, can be sustained and whether there is a case made to exercise the discretionary powers under section 438 of the Code, on the basis of the record placed before me. 15. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General in his usual articulations has, at great length, emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants in view of the seriousness of the accusations and more particularly to facilitate the investigations to be completed expeditiously. He has also stated that the accusations are nothing short of a fraud on the public and a large number of people have been cheated by the association. He made it clear that the intended custodial interrogation is the decision independently taken by the police and the State Administration or any political big wigs are not behind the said decision, the police are acting as per their own procedure and without any influence from any other wing of the State. He made it clear that the intended custodial interrogation is the decision independently taken by the police and the State Administration or any political big wigs are not behind the said decision, the police are acting as per their own procedure and without any influence from any other wing of the State. The President of the Association cannot take protection under the shield of his political status and unwarranted hue and cry is being made that he is sought to be arrested only because of his political status, or to tarnish his political image, or to settle political scores. The learned Advocate General also urged before this Court that the police machinery has acted all along in the manner they were required to act and they have demonstrated their bona fides by their actions during the last two to three weeks. Though the complaints were registered by the officials of the association, on or before 5th April, 2001, regarding the fake tickets being circulated in the market, that itself cannot be a reason to believe that none of the officials and more so, the present applicants, are not involved in the alleged crime. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are well-reasoned and require to be upheld by rejecting the applications and more so, taking into consideration the larger public interest and the conduct of the applicants, urged the learned Advocate General. 16. Before I proceed to evaluate the merits, it will be necessary to consider the legal position in respect of anticipatory bail applications under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, "the Code"). 17. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 did not contain any specific provision akin to section 438 of the present Code. The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report dated September, 24, 1969, pointed out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code enabling the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory bail and in its Report (Vol. I), the Commission inter alia stated as under:- "39.9 The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as 'anticipatory bail') was carefully considered by us. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a Court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a Court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. We recommend the acceptance of this suggestion. We are further of the view that this special power should be conferred only on the High Court and the Court of Session, and that the order should take effect at the time of arrest or thereafter." The Law Commission's recommendations were accepted by the Government of India and section 438 came to be incorporated in the Code. The said section reads as under :- "Section 438.---Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest- (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. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that person shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a Police Station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1)." The section lays down that two conditions are required to be satisfied for entertaining an application for anticipatory bail, namely:- (a) the applicant has reason to believe that he may be arrested, (b) on accusations of having committed a non-bailable offence. 18. In the instant case, the investigating agency has made clear its intention to take the applicants in custody for interrogation and this was clear before the Sessions Court as well, and, therefore, the first requirement of section 438 regarding the apprehension in the mind of the applicants of being arrested is clearly established or satisfied. Anticipatory bail is a statutory right created under section 438 of the Code and it may not be termed as a constitutional right. However, the right of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is required to be considered while deciding such applications. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. However, the right of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is required to be considered while deciding such applications. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632, on the scope of powers under section 438 of the Code and the personal liberty of the applicant while exercising these powers by the Court of the Sessions or the High Court. While recording the situations the Law Commission had in mind to meet the requirements for incorporation of section 438 of the Code, the Supreme Court stated as follows:- "It is the normal day-to-day business of the police to investigate into charges brought before them and, broadly and generally, they have nothing to gain, not favours at any rate, by subjecting ordinary criminals to needless harassment. But the crimes, the criminals and even the complainants can occasionally possess extraordinary features. When the even flow of life becomes turbid, the police can be called upon to inquire into charges arising out of political antagonism. The powerful processes of criminal law can then be perverted for achieving extraneous ends. Attendant upon such investigations, when the police are not free agents within their sphere of duty, is a great amount of inconvenience, harassment and humiliation. That can even take the form of the parading of a respectable person in hand-cuffs, apparently on way to a Court of justice. The foul deed is done when an adversary, is exposed to social ridicule and obloquy, no matter when and whether a conviction is secured or is at all possible. It is in order to meet such situations, though not limited to these contingencies, that the power to grant anticipatory bail was introduced into the Code of 1973." 19. In the case of Gurbaksh Singh (supra) who was the Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Congress Ministry of the Punjab Government, grave allegations of political corruption were made against him and others, whereupon applications were filed in the High Court under section 438 for anticipatory bail. On considering the importance of the matter, the learned Single Judge had referred the applications to a Full Bench which by its judgment dated 13th September, 1977, dismissed them by summarising the legal position in the following terms:- 1. On considering the importance of the matter, the learned Single Judge had referred the applications to a Full Bench which by its judgment dated 13th September, 1977, dismissed them by summarising the legal position in the following terms:- 1. The power under section 438 of the Code is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only; 2. Neither section 438, nor any of the provisions of the Code authorises the grant of blanket anticipatory bail for offences not yet committed or with regard to accusations not so far levelled; 3. The said power is not unguided or uncanalized but all the limitations imposed in the preceding section 437, are implicit therein and must be read into section 438; 4. In addition to the limitations, mentioned in section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail; 5. Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under section 438 should not be exercised; 6. The discretion under section 438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. 7. The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher wrung of the executive and political power, the discretion under section 438 of the Code should not be exercised; and 8. Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The Court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless. The Apex Court examined these parameters set out by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and disagreed with the observations at serial Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8. The Court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless. The Apex Court examined these parameters set out by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and disagreed with the observations at serial Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8. The Apex Court (Constitutional Bench) further laid down the following the general principles governing applications for anticipatory bail:- (a) By any known canon of construction, words of width and amplitude ought not generally, to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute restraints and conditions which the legislature itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose. This is especially true when the statutory provision which falls for consideration is designed to secure a valuable right like the right to personal freedom and involves the application of a presumption as salutary and deep-grained in our Criminal Jurisprudence as the presumption of innocence. (b) The Legislature conferred a wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail because it evidently felt, firstly that it would be difficult to enumerate the conditions under which anticipatory bail should, or should not be granted, and secondly, because the intention was to allow the higher courts in the echelon a somewhat free hand in the grant of relief in the nature of anticipatory bail. (c) It has to be borne in mind that anticipatory bail is sought when there is a mere apprehension of arrest on the accusation that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence. A person who has yet to lose his freedom by being arrested asks for freedom in the event of arrest. That is the stage at which it is imperative to protect his freedom, in so far as one may, and to give full play to the presumption that he is innocent. (d) The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made, ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. (d) The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made, ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. (e) Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. And it will be strange if, by employing judicial artifices and techniques, we cut down the discretion so wisely conferred upon the courts, by devising a formula which will confine the power to grant anticipatory bail within a straight jacket. (f) An order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly take away from the Police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual conditions incorporated in a direction issued under section 438(1) are those recommended in sub-section (2)(i) and (ii), which require the applicant to co-operate with the Police and assure that he shall not tamper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. (g) The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. (h) A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum. 20. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has also relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contentions that the applicants do not deserve the protection of section 438 of the Code and the applications are required to be turned down by this Court:- 1. (Supt. Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 52, 2. (State represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma)3, reported in 1997(7) S.C.C. 187 , 3. (Er. K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh others)4, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1934, and 4. (Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora another)5, reported in 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)618. In the case of Anil Sharma (supra), the application for anticipatory bail was opposed by the C.B.I. on the grounds that the applicant was a former Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Member of Legislative Assembly and was the son of the former Union Minister for Telecommunications and there was an allegation that the respondent had amassed wealth far in excess of his known sources of income. It was also contended that the assets were made through illegal means and there was clear-cut evidence pointing to the transfer of assets. It was under these circumstances, the Apex Court held that the apprehension of the investigating agency was quite reasonable considering the high position the respondent held and in the nature of the accusations leading to a period during which he had such office. The Apex Court observed that the High Court had mis-directed itself by exercising the discretionary powers under section 438 of the Code by granting a pre-arrest bail to Mr. Sharma. In the case of K.K. Jerath (supra), a search had been conducted at the house of the applicant by the Income Tax Department and certain amount of cash, gold ornaments and silver-ware were found. Sharma. In the case of K.K. Jerath (supra), a search had been conducted at the house of the applicant by the Income Tax Department and certain amount of cash, gold ornaments and silver-ware were found. It was contended by the C.B.I. that if the applicant was released on bail, his acts might impair the investigations even resulting into tampering with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. The High Court had taken the view that the assurance to co-operate with the investigating agency in the interrogation would be a matter of mere ritual and custodial interrogation would be more appropriate in the case. Before the Apex Court several legal points were raised, including the scope of Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India while considering the plea for bail. While confirming the view taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court observed:--- "We may only state in considering a petition for grant of bail necessarily if public interest requires detention of citizen in custody for purpose of investigation could be considered and rejected as otherwise there could be hurdles in the investigation even resulting in tampering of evidence." In the case of Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay (supra), the allegations of violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were levelled and the Supreme Court held that unless the applicant alleged and established in the materials that he was being unnecessarily harassed by the investigating agency, the Court would not be justified in invoking its jurisdiction under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granting anticipatory bail. 21. In the case of (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Kirshna Kundu another)6, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3589, the respondents were engaged by the Public Service Commission for printing question papers for the B.Sc. Examination. There was a leakage of question papers and it was revealed that the printers were responsible for such leakage. The State Government had black-listed the printers, but such an order did not put a stoppage and in respect of the examinations held in December, 1996 as well as in March, 1997, the Government had to cancel the examinations consequent on serious allegations that question papers were leaked again before the examinations. The State Government had black-listed the printers, but such an order did not put a stoppage and in respect of the examinations held in December, 1996 as well as in March, 1997, the Government had to cancel the examinations consequent on serious allegations that question papers were leaked again before the examinations. Criminal cases were registered by the police and during the investigations it was revealed that despite black-listing of the applications they managed to obtain the printing work of question papers in collusion with the Secretary of the Public Service Commission and it was also revealed that they had personated themselves as owners of yet another printing establishment. For this a criminal conspiracy was hatched by the respondents with some officers of the Board of Intermediate Education and at that stage they had approached the High Court for anticipatory bail. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the application on the ground that the offences involved were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court set aside the order and the observations made in para 13 are required to be considered. They read thus:--- "We are strongly of the opinion, that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. 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. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on the career of millions of students', learned Single Judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order." Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has raised a similar plea of conspiracy and the possibility of the applicants impeding the investigations if they are given the benefit of section 438 of the Code and has also brought into force the aspect of public interest. It would be necessary to consider these ennunciations on the basis of the record and the seriousness of the accusations, if any, that reveal from such record. Let us therefore, examine the record on this serious accusation of printing of a large number of fake tickets which were subsequently sold in the market, mostly through the net work of the contractor Mr. Chinmay Fallary and may be the other sources set up by him. 22. Mr. Chinmay Fallary gave his first statement before the Police on 7th April, 2001 and the second statement on 8th April, 2001. The first statement ran into about 5 and ½ pages, whereas the second statement is about 1 and ½ pages typed. There is nothing incriminating in both these statements against any official of the Association, except his grievance that 4,200 tickets of Rs. 200/- denomination were not handed over to him by 3rd April, 2001, by the association. It has come on record that subsequently some of these tickets have been allegedly passed on by the treasurer to his chosen men for selling in the market. The contractor was arrested on 9th April, 2001 and on the next day his house was searched. The search panchanama is on record. Alongwith the fake tickets some bundles of currency notes amounting to Rs. 55,000/- were found. Mr. Fallary gave his third statement on 13th April, 2001, while in custody. The earlier two statements given by him indicate that he was the highest bidder at Rs. 68,00,000/-, he was given similar contract for the earlier match played in December, 1997, all the procedural formalities were followed properly while awarding the contract to him. However, in the third statement dated 13th April, 2001, he changed his story and stated that:--- (a) he had contacted the President of the Association on 'phone and on learning from him that the highest bid for the contract may be about Rs. 65,00,000/- was advised to quote above that figure ending with 7' and, therefore, he had originally submitted a quotation for Rs. 65,00,000/- was advised to quote above that figure ending with 7' and, therefore, he had originally submitted a quotation for Rs. 70,00,777/-; (b) when the tender forms were opened it was conveyed to him that the second highest bid was at Rs. 67,00,000/- and, therefore, the treasurer Ramnath Shankar Das told him that his tender for Rs. 68,00,000/- would be passed and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- should be given to the Committee, which was agreed by him and, accordingly, cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- was handed over to the said treasurer; (c) the treasurer advised him to withdraw the original tender and the treasurer gave him a blank paper on which he wrote Rs. 68,00,000/- with a forwarding letter on the same day; (d) he had explained to Ramnath Shankar Das that during the last contract he was required to pay half of the amount of the total value within 8 days and as he had already paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as bribe what facility would be available to him. On this he was told that he shall be helped maximum; (e) on 27th March, 2001, he was informed by the treasurer to meet the President at his residence at Mapusa and, accordingly, he followed the advice. The President initially scolded him eventhough he had already paid an amount of Rs. 65,74,000/- and further, threatened him with penal action and at the end he wanted the Contractor to pass on some tickets of all denominations to Novelty Sports. Initially he did not want to follow the orders of the President, but on account of pressure and harassment he agreed; (f) on 28th March, 2001, when he met the treasurer for collecting the balance tickets the treasurer took tickets worth Rs. 8,10,000/- on the pretext that these tickets were required to be given to Bacardi and Pepsi Companies as well as Board of Cricket Control of India and Sports Authority of Goa, etc. He calculated the total payments amount and came to the conclusion that he was to receive an amount of Rs. 84,000/- from the association, which he did not receive at any time. This statement then turns into an interesting disclosure in the following terms:--- "It was frustrated as Ramnath had earlier told me that not to worry as finance is concerned and changed his decision when three days were remaining for the payment of the first slab. 84,000/- from the association, which he did not receive at any time. This statement then turns into an interesting disclosure in the following terms:--- "It was frustrated as Ramnath had earlier told me that not to worry as finance is concerned and changed his decision when three days were remaining for the payment of the first slab. I was told by Ramnath then that I should arrange the money as per the contract on 20th March, 2001. I somehow managed to collect the amount and paid him accordingly. I decided that day I was called by Ramnath I should print the forged/fake tickets and, accordingly, I took the boxes (tickets) of all the denominations from Ramnath and took out two tickets each from each bundle and packed in an envelope and gave it to Devdatta Fallary and told him to give the same to Jairaj and I had spoken to Jairaj earlier to get the tickets printed from Sivakashi and when Devdatta reached Shivakashi he showed two printing presses but they were not ready to do the same. Thereafter Devadatta went to Bangalore, checked some printing presses there and has returned back to Goa. Prior to going to Bangalore, Devdatta had kept one set of the tickets with different denominations to Jairaj at Shivakashi. Devdatta left on flight to Bangalore. Ticket for the flight was bought by Venkat Raut Desai in the name of Dnynesh Fallary, who is alias Devdatta Fallary. On about 27th March, 2001, I received a call from Jairaj that the printing of the tickets would be possible provided he sends agreement between the GCA and myself and order. The same was thereafter got printed from Yersan Printers at Sivakashi and the same were dispatched to me at Goa and they were 1,000 tickets of Rs. 1,000/- denomination, 1,000/- tickets of Rs. 750/- denomination, 3000 tickets of Rs. 500/- denomination and 15,000 tickets of Rs. 200/- denominations were got printed. The same were circulated and sold to different members of the public by myself, Venkat, Joaquim and Sudesh alias Gangaram. On 6th April, 2001, when I learnt that there was lathi charge and maximum people had to go home inspite of valid ticket, I got scared and directed Devdatta to burn the remaining all tickets (bogus)." 23. This Contractor gave his fourth statement to the police while in custody on 16th April, 2001. On 6th April, 2001, when I learnt that there was lathi charge and maximum people had to go home inspite of valid ticket, I got scared and directed Devdatta to burn the remaining all tickets (bogus)." 23. This Contractor gave his fourth statement to the police while in custody on 16th April, 2001. He repeated the same story of contacting the President of the Association on 'phone and his advice to quote a figure ending with 7' and accordingly, he quoted Rs. 70,00,777/- as well as the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the treasurer. He came out with one more instance of meeting the President of the association in his house while returning from his Kuludevata at Nanora alongwith his father Gopal Fallary and his brother. He requested the President for his help in finance matters regarding the payments of money for the tickets to which the President assured him that he would be helped and he would be protected. The concluding disclosure which he makes in this statement requires to be reproduced:--- "I further state that treasurer Ramnath told me that he was the Chairman of Security Committee and he would help me at the gates and I was encouraged to go for fake tickets to recover the consideration amount paid by me and further loss of tickets which were diverted to Novelty Sports at Mapusa by the President and Treasurer." The police in the course of investigation have also recorded the statement of Chinmay Fallary's father on 19th April, 2001 and the last part of the statement reads:--- "I say that Chinmay printed fake tickets only because Dayanand Narvekar withheld 3,000 tickets and harassed Chinmay to the payments as Chinmay had told me then that Narvekar had withheld 3,000 tickets." 24. The statement of Ramnath Shankar Das has been recorded by the police on 11th April, 2001, after he was taken in custody, wherein nothing incriminating or related to the issue of fake tickets has been revealed, though the treasurer has admitted that some excess tickets were printed officially (about 1100) and he denied that he had any role in printing of the fake tickets bearing Bar Code No. 39023. His supplementary statement has been recorded on 16th April, 2001, wherein he has corroborated the allegations made by Chinmay Fallary regarding the first tender of Rs. 70,00,777/- and its replacement by a new tender of Rs. His supplementary statement has been recorded on 16th April, 2001, wherein he has corroborated the allegations made by Chinmay Fallary regarding the first tender of Rs. 70,00,777/- and its replacement by a new tender of Rs. 68,00,000/-, for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He further goes on to say that he had consulted the President of the Association before and he always acted as per the directions of the President. The subsequent statement reads thus:--- "I had assured Chinmay Fallary to help him by giving relaxation in payment of Rs. 68,00,000/- and make good his losses since I was the Treasurer, member of the Tender Committee, Chairman of Security Committee and overall most trusted man of the President Dayanand Narvekar. Since I had the understanding with Chinmay Fallary the contractor, I never took it seriously to have effective checking at the gates of the stadium, but I told Chinmay Fallary to look after the security services at the gates as Chinmay Fallary was a ticket contractor." It needs to be noted at this stage itself that this supplementary statement also does not say anything about the involvement of any of the association officials in the racket of fake tickets as confessed by the contractor before the police, notwithstanding the authenticity or value of such a confusion while in police custody. During the course of investigation, the police have also recorded the statements of some other members of the Managing Committee of the association like that of Dr. Shekar Salkar. The statement of Madusudan Rao of Hitech Printer Systems of Hyderabad also has been recorded on 18th April, 2001, including a number of persons who had purchased tickets from the market on or after 3rd April, 2001 and subsequently realized that they were taken for a ride as those tickets were fake. A large number of such tickets have also been confiscated during the course of investigation and more particularly of those persons who could not enter the Stadium. 25. This record which is placed before me if scanned on the accusations of fake tickets having been printed and sold, there are only two statements, i.e. the third statement of Chinmay Fallary and the statement of his father. There is nothing in this regard coming out from any other source at least at this stage, including the treasurer, who has confessed while in Police custody to having accepted Rs. There is nothing in this regard coming out from any other source at least at this stage, including the treasurer, who has confessed while in Police custody to having accepted Rs. 2,00,000/- as consideration from the ticket contractor. Even in the statement of the Contractor or his father, the finger of accusation does not point out a case of conspiracy involving the applicants. The contractor states that he got fed up and felt cheated by the treasurer and therefore, to make the loss good, he decided to go in for printing of fake tickets. His father makes a statement that from his son he came to know that he resorted to this printing of fake tickets because the President of the Association did not hand over 3,000 tickets. The complaint registered on 6th April 2001 under the signature of Mr. Raut Desai is for offences punishable under sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document and cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has invited my attention to the remand application submitted by the Police before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Margao and this remand application includes two more charges, i.e. offences punishable under sections 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 120-B pertains to criminal conspiracy and section 201 is in respect of causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. The said remand application was submitted in respect of the accused, namely Chinmay Fallary, Gopal Fallary, Gangaram Bhise, Jairaj Ramaswamy, Ramnath Shankar Das, Devdatta Fallary and Eknath Naik. Except Chinmay Fallary and Ramnath Shankar Das, all others have already been released by the Magistrate and Chinmay Fallary and Ramnath Shankar Das are presently in judicial custody. 26. The investigating agency insists that the arrest of the applicants is necessary because:--- (a) they are not co-operating and giving evasive replies; (b) the nature of the accusations is grave warranting custodial interrogation; (c) if custodial interrogation is not allowed, the investigation is likely to be impeded by the actions of the applicants in view of their status, and (d) it would be in the larger public interest that they are allowed to be taken in custody for interrogation. There is no doubt that the protection of section 438 of the Code is not a matter of right and it is subject to the discretionary exercise of such powers by the Court of Sessions, or by the High Court and while such an application is being considered, it is necessary to examine the seriousness of the charge/accusations, the possibility of the applicants absconding or impeding the investigation by any other actions and the personal liberty vis-a-vis the seriousness of the accusations. It is not necessary that in every case custodial interrogation is a must and even in respect of the charges/accusations of non-bailable offences, it is necessary to examine the record of the investigating agency to consider the application under section 438 of the Code. 27. The Law Commission in its Report reproduced earlier, had envisaged the necessity for granting anticipatory bail, mainly because:--- (a) sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days; and (b) in cases where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail. It is doubtful whether the first situation as envisaged by the Law Commission, obtains in the instant case. While considering the nature of accusations, or the alleged conspiracy, as is reflected in the investigation papers, it is necessary for this Court to consider whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in his conclusions that custodial interrogation was warranted in the instant cases. In paras 33 to 43 of his judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the statements of the Police and these statements must necessarily be seen in the record, so as to sustain the impugned order. This order does not consider the second situation as was envisaged by the Law Commission for providing anticipatory bail, namely, the possibility of the applicants absconding or avoiding interrogation. Before the Sessions Court, the police have emphasized on the status of the President and submitted that there was every possibility that the President and the Secretary would expert considerable influence on the witnesses in the event bail is granted to them. Before the Sessions Court, the police have emphasized on the status of the President and submitted that there was every possibility that the President and the Secretary would expert considerable influence on the witnesses in the event bail is granted to them. It has also been stated that the crime alleged against them is of serious nature where public money is involved and investigating agency required an opportunity to interrogate the Secretary and others, in custody. 28. I have reproduced in the earlier paragraphs the relevant statements made by the two, main accused, i.e. Chinmay Fallary and Ramnath Shankar Das, as well as the father of Chinmay Fallary and if these statements and investigation papers are considered in respect of the accusation of printing and sale of fake tickets, vis-a-vis the conduct of the applicants, including their status, it cannot be accepted that the police are faced with imminent possibility of the applicants absconding or not being available for interrogation. Even if the statement of Chinmay Fallary regarding printing and sale of these fake tickets is considered on its own merit, it is not possible to believe or accept the insistence of the police regarding the necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants, at least at this stage. Irrespective of the political, financial or social status of an accused or a suspected person, an application for anticipatory bail is required to be considered mainly on the basis of the seriousness of the charges or accusations and the possibility of the applicants absconding, or in any way impeding the investigations vis-a-vis the personal liberty available to such an individual. The exercise of power under section 438 of the Code is required to be conditioned, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case as they reflect in the investigation papers. On perusal of these papers placed before me and inspite of the distinguished arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General, I am not persuaded to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in support of his findings that custodial interrogations of the applicants are warranted. I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Sessions Judge failed to exercise his discretion in the manner it ought to have been exercised. I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Sessions Judge failed to exercise his discretion in the manner it ought to have been exercised. The discretion under section 438 of the Code is required to be exercised by evaluation of the seriousness of the accusations and the attending factors which are likely to cause or create difficulties in the process of investigation or hamper the investigation and courts are not required to be overwhelmed or swayed by the public out-cry, or public opinion. Personal liberty of an individual has been guaranteed by the Constitution of India and when an application under section 438 of the Code is made, it is required to be considered on its own merits irrespective of the status of such applicant and keeping in mind that process of investigations is not affected in any way. That does not mean that the investigation can be carried out only if the accused or suspected persons are taken in police custody. The accused are not co-operating or giving evasive replies, is no ground by itself to support of plea of custodial interrogations. Resultantly the impugned order rejecting the applications under section 438 of the Code cannot be sustained. 29. For the reasons elaborately set out hereinabove, the applications are allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, dated 21st April, 2001, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, directed that in the event both the applicants, are, or any one of them is arrested, they/he shall be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) in the case of the first applicant and a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) in respect of the second applicant, with two solvent sureties for the like amount and on the following conditions, namely:--- (a) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when called by the police and from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., except for one hour's lunch break. (b) They shall not leave the State of Goa without a written permission from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Goa. (c) They shall surrender their mobile phones, if any forthwith to the police alongwith simcards and shall not use any such instruments. (d) The applicants shall not associate themselves and participate in the activities of the Goa Cricket Association in any manner. (c) They shall surrender their mobile phones, if any forthwith to the police alongwith simcards and shall not use any such instruments. (d) The applicants shall not associate themselves and participate in the activities of the Goa Cricket Association in any manner. (e) They shall not act in any manner so as to influence any witness/accused during the investigation undertaken by the police in respect of the subject-matter and shall extend their full co-operation to the police in completing the on-going investigation at the earliest possible. (f) The applicants shall not, in any way, carry out financial transactions for and on behalf of the Goa Cricket Association. (g) They shall surrender their passports, if any, to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Goa. (h) The applicants shall keep the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Goa, informed about their movements as and when they move out of their respective residential areas/towns. This communication can be on phone or to the nearest Police Station. This order shall be in force for a period of one month, or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier and in case there is breach of any of these conditions by any of the applicants, the police are at liberty to approach this Court either for modification or withdrawal of the order. Rule made absolute in terms of the above order. -----