R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is the commissioner of Central Excise and customs at Visakhapatnam, filed this petition under Section 438 Cr. PC, seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. RC 7 (a) of 2001 of the Central Bureau of Investigation, visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the first accused in the aforementioned crime registered on 9-3-2001 under Section 120 (B)IPC and sections 8, 10, 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution is as under: on receiving reliable information that the petitioner is indulging in corrupt and anti-national activities by abusing his official position, the CBI had obtained permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs to monitor his telephone conversations and kept surveillance on his mobile phone through TATA Cellular Service, Hyderabad. During the course of such monitoring and also through reliable source, the CBI received information to the effect that the petitioner, by abusing his official position, has entered into a criminal conspiracy with one Sri kamaraju of M/s. Vasavi Group of industries, Hyderabad (A2) to do official favour in the matter of adjudication of evasion of excise duty, pending before him, relating to Saritha Synthetics Limited represented by the said A2. ( 4 ) THE further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, directed one Sri sanjay, a businessman of New Delhi (A3), over phone to collect illegal gratification of Rs. 25. 00 lakhs from A2 at Hyderabad on 9-3-2001. Whereupon, A3 agreed to accept the said illegal gratification and accordingly informed petitioner A1 by phone that he would be sending his brother and another partner (A4 and A5) to collect the same from A2 at Hyderabad. A3 also agreed to inform to the petitioner A1 after receipt of the said illegal gratification at Hyderabad, so that the petitioner A1 would do the needful with regard to the adjudication order. ( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said criminal conspiracy, A3 had deputed A4 and a5 from Delhi to Hyderabad on 9-3-2001. The CBI has laid a trap in the presence of independent witnesses at Hyderabad and caught A4 and A5, who were sent by a3 from New Delhi, while receiving the illegal gratification amount of Rs. 15. 00 lakhs from A2. The CBI has laid a trap in the presence of independent witnesses at Hyderabad and caught A4 and A5, who were sent by a3 from New Delhi, while receiving the illegal gratification amount of Rs. 15. 00 lakhs from A2. The FIR with regard to the same was submitted to the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, visakhapatnam. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, who went on leave from 10-3-2001 to 28-3-2001, filed a petition before the High Court of Delhi, seeking pre-arrest bail. On 26-3-2001 the delhi High Court instead of granting him pre-arrest bail, granted interim protection for two weeks to enable him to appear before the concerned Court at Visakhapatnam and move for bail in accordance with law and also directed that till then he should not be arrested. Then the petitioner approached the Special Judge for CBI, cases at Visakhapatnam, under Section 438 cr. PC for grant of anticipatory bail. That application was strongly resisted by the cbi. The learned Special Judge dismissed that application, by an elaborate order, dated 6-4-2001. The petitioner then approached this Court by filing the present petition. ( 7 ) THE CBI filed a counter-affidavit, strongly opposing the prayer of the petitioner, stating inter alia, that the petitioner, who is a highly influenced person, will tamper and destroy the evidence if he is released on bail, that the petitioner and his wife are not co-operating with the investigating agency, and that his custodial interrogation is absolutely required. ( 8 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner al, submitted that: (1) the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely and unnecessarily implicated in the crime, (2) the petitioner and his wife are always ready to co-operate with the investigating authorities and prepared to present themselves for interrogation as and when called for, (3) the petitioner is also prepared to deposit his pass-port, and (4) the question of tampering any witnesses would not arise inasmuch as all the records were seized by the CBI. ( 9 ) ALL these may be relevant considerations, which may weigh with the court, while granting regular bail under sections 437 and 439 Cr. PC. , but, in my considered view, they cannot be relevant considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case like this. ( 9 ) ALL these may be relevant considerations, which may weigh with the court, while granting regular bail under sections 437 and 439 Cr. PC. , but, in my considered view, they cannot be relevant considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case like this. The petitioner, who is no less than a Commissioner of Central Excise, is charged with heinous crime of "corruption". Corruption, particularly, at high places is eating into the vitals of our society. Unless this menace is checked right now and the cancerous growth is stopped, it may threaten the very existence of our independent nation. Therefore, in my considered view, Courts should be slow and circumspect in entertaining an application for pre-arrest bail of a person charged with the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING almost a similar question, the Supreme Court in Enforcement officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji bora and another, (1999) 5 SCC 720 , held thus :"the criteria and questions to be considered for exercising power under Section 438 Cr. PC has been recently dealt with in Dukshishyam benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria { (1998) 1 SCC 52 = 1998 SCC (Cri.) 261}. The white-collar criminal like the respondent against whom the allegation is that he has violated the provisions of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act is a menace to the society and therefore unless he alleges and establishes in the materials that he is being unnecessarily harassed by the investigating agency, the Court would not be justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. PC and granting anticipatory bail". (Emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true, that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 17-4-2001 (which was filed after filing of counter by the CBI) he made an allegation to the effect that inspite of his co-operation, the investigating officials are harassing him by using foul language and humiliating him in imprintable language. But, 1 find no such allegation in the affidavit filed by him along with the petition. Furthermore, except the said bald allegation, no material was placed in support of the said allegation. In the circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the said allegation is a mere afterthought. But, 1 find no such allegation in the affidavit filed by him along with the petition. Furthermore, except the said bald allegation, no material was placed in support of the said allegation. In the circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the said allegation is a mere afterthought. ( 12 ) IN the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner (A1 ). ( 13 ) THE criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.