ORDER Virender Singh, J. - By this order I shall be disposing of three Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 16029-M of 2003 (Vinay Mahajan v. State of Punjab), 16031-M of 2003 (Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab) and 16033-M of 2003 (Vinay Kumar v. State of Punjab) as all the three petitions arise out of the same FIR No. 13 dated March 28, 2003, under Sections 409/120-B Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(1) & (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at police station Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. 2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar received a secret information that Vinay Mahajan (petitioner in Crl. Misc. 16029/M), who is President of Nagar Council Sujanpur, in connivance with Surinder Kumar, Municipal Commissioner (petitioner in Crl. Misc. 16031/M), Girdhari Lal, another Member of the said Committee and Jagtar Singh, Executive Officer had appointed 9 Clerks in violation of rules because the said persons were very close to them. The other allegation against Vinay Mahajan and Surinder Kumar applicants is that they being President and the Municipal Commissioner gave possession of land of the Nagar Council to one Vipan Kumar, which was of the value of lacs of rupees. The other allegations highlighted against Vinay Mahajan are that he being the President had got a street constructed leading to the lone house of one Suresh Kumar, Municipal Councillor, causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs to the Municipal Council; that he caused another loss to the tune of Rs. 2.50 lacs to the Council by constructing lanes on the land belonging to the Canal Department without getting any sanction from it; that being the President, he also gave contracts to his close contractors to the tune of more than Rs. 64 lacs and the said contractors did not execute the works properly; that he also caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 1.50 lacs by auctioning the octroi at a lower rate and that he also granted illegal revision of house-tax to his favourite persons to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-, thereby causing loss to the Council. Primarily on these allegations the present case was registered by the Vigilance Department against the present petitioners. 3. I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for Vinay Mahajan and Surinder Kumar petitioners, Mr. 85,000/-, thereby causing loss to the Council. Primarily on these allegations the present case was registered by the Vigilance Department against the present petitioners. 3. I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for Vinay Mahajan and Surinder Kumar petitioners, Mr. TPS Mann, learned counsel for Vinay Kumar petitioner and Mr. Mansur Ali, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. The concerned Investigating Officer from the Vigilance Department is also present. 4. Mr. Bali appearing for Vinay Mahajan and Surinder Kumar petitioners has vehemently argued that after both these petitioners were granted the concession of interim relief by this Court vide order dated April 17, 2003, they had been joining the investigation as and when called upon to do so. It is then contended that the other two co-accused namely Girdhari Lal, who was also Member of the Committee and Jagtar Singh, who was posted as Executive Officer at the relevant time, have been granted the concession of regular bail by learned Special Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated April 10, 2003 itself, whereas the bail applications of the present petitioners, who were almost similarly situated, have been declined without assigning any reasons. Mr. Bali further contends that the prosecution agency has not been able to show the culpability of the present two petitioners with any of the allegations. 5. Developing his arguments on behalf of Vinay Mahajan petitioner, the learned counsel contends that so far as recruitment of Clerks is concerned, it has been done by the Sub Committee, which was duly constituted for this purpose and he being the President, has no nexus with it. It is then contended that even otherwise in two Civil Writ Petitions (Nos. 9293 of 2002 and 3102 of 2001), written statement has also been filed on behalf of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Sujanpur, wherein it has been stated that no irregularity has been committed. In this context, the learned counsel relies upon Annexure P3. 6. Meeting the other allegations, it has been argued that as per the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Rules framed thereunder, the entire work of Municipal Committee/Council was carried out after passing the resolutions in the House, which were duly approved. The work done was also checked by Executive Officer, who is an appointee of the Government and as such nothing has been carried out by him being the President of his own free will. 7. The work done was also checked by Executive Officer, who is an appointee of the Government and as such nothing has been carried out by him being the President of his own free will. 7. It is then contended that Vinay Mahajan petitioner is now being falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry as he is against one of the sitting MLAs, who is also holding a portfolio in the present Cabinet. 8. It has been argued on behalf of Surinder Kumar petitioner that his involvement is shown in two allegations, whereas his name does not figure in the remaining allegations. So far as appointment of Clerks is concerned, the learned counsel has reiterated his argument about filing of two Civil Writ Petitions aforesaid. Strengthening his arguments, it has been submitted that Surinder Kumar, who was member of the Sub Committee, had specifically raised an objection in relation to the appointment of one Rajesh Kumar and had also mentioned that instead of the approval from the Legal Advisor, the sanction from Deputy Director should be taken and only thereafter the appointment should be made. It has been further contended that the appointment of all the Clerks including Rajesh Kumar has been shown to be in order by the Executive Officer himself as is clear from the written statement, referred to above, and as such the present petitioner is not even remotely shown to have any hand in it. 9. So far as the allegation in relation to house-tax etc. is concerned, it is submitted that this petitioner was only a member of Sub Committee in relation to fixing the rates of the House tax and as such he could not be fastened with any liability as the decisions were approved by the House. The learned counsel otherwise submits that the rejection of the bail application of Surinder Kumar petitioner is on flimsy grounds. 10. Reverting back to his arguments on behalf of both the petitioners, it has then been contended that earlier also an application for anticipatory bail was moved before the Special Judge, as both the petitioners were apprehending their false implication, but the said application was disposed of on 11.3.2003 by the court on the statement of one police official to the effect that the petitioners were not required in the case. The present case, according to the learned counsel, has been registered just after two weeks ie.e. on 28.3.2003 for certain ulterior motives so as to malign the reputation of the petitioners. The other argument developed for seeking the relief is that no custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required in this case as the present case is hinging upon documentary evidence and all the relevant documents have already been taken into custody by the Vigilance Department. 11. Mr. Mann arguing for Vinay Kumar petitioner contends that he was working as Junior Engineer in Municipal Council, Sujanpur from March 2001 to March 2003 as he had joined the said Council on deputation whereas he originally belongs to Irrigation Department. He then contends that the job was done under the supervision of officials of the Municipal Council and that the petitioner cannot be even remotely connected with the President or any Member of the Sub Committee. Mr. Mann further contends that the petitioner has already joined the investigation after he got the interim relief from this Court and is no longer required for the purpose of further interrogation. 12. Refuting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for all the three petitioners, Mr. Ali, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that so far as recruitment of Clerks is concerned, the written statement in question would not render any help to Vinay Mahajan and Surinder Kumar petitioners as it was filed during the tenure of Vinay Mahajan, who as President at that time. Regarding the other allegations, Mr. Ali submits that the public land was misutilized by Vinay Mahajan being President and in making the area pacca, a huge amount in the shape of public fund of the Council has been misutilized. He has then contended that no sanction was obtained from the Canal Department for carrying out certain works, whereas it was mandatory. So far as bungling of funds in the octroi is concerned, it has been submitted that straightaway a loss of Rs. 33 lacs has been caused by Vinay Mahajan petitioner as the said octroi was to be taken directly from the petrol pumps. 13. Mr. Ali then contends that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the bail granted to Jagtar Singh and Girdhari Lal co-accused as the relief sought by them was different, that being the concession of regular bail as they were already in judicial custody since long. 13. Mr. Ali then contends that the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from the bail granted to Jagtar Singh and Girdhari Lal co-accused as the relief sought by them was different, that being the concession of regular bail as they were already in judicial custody since long. He thus contends that the present petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 14. Refraining myself from commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of trial, I am of the considered view that Surinder Kumar and Vinay Kumar deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Surinder Kumar is shown to have been involved in two allegations and keeping in view the explanation rendered by him and the totality of circumstances, he deserves the relief as sought for. Similarly, Vinay Kumar, who was posted as Junior Engineer on deputation, was also getting the works done under the supervision of the officers of the Municipal Council and as such his case can also be segregated. Even otherwise the custodial interrogation of these two petitioners is also not at all required. 15. So far as Vinay Mahajan petitioner is concerned, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Simply because Jagtar Singh and Girdhari Lal co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail, that by itself would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to this petitioner. In my view, the criteria for granting the anticipatory bail is materially different from the one for considering the regular bail after arrest. Introduction of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail was primarily with an object. No doubt sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in a false case with a view to disgrace them or for the purposes of some political bout (clout?) or oblique motives and the intention of the opponent is that the person should be behind the bars for one reason or the other. No doubt, the liberty of the person, is very valuable in the light of the constitutional safeguards, but at the same time, the Courts would not allow any person holding any office on account of his status as a government servant or out of his political out to squander away the public money. No doubt, the liberty of the person, is very valuable in the light of the constitutional safeguards, but at the same time, the Courts would not allow any person holding any office on account of his status as a government servant or out of his political out to squander away the public money. The petitioner has allegedly caused a huge loss worth more than one crore to the Municipal Council in his capacity as its President. The totality of the allegations on the face of it have to be taken into account. Keeping in view the magnitude of seriousness of the offences, the custodial interrogation of this petitioner would be really result oriented and effective. In State v. Anil Sharma, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 1039, the Apex Court has observed that the Court should lean in favour of custodial interrogation in the cases where huge public funds are involved. Resultantly, Crl. Misc. No. 16031/M and 16033/M of 2003 are allowed. In the event of their arrest, Surinder Kumar and Vinay Kumar petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, they would abide by the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code Criminal Miscellaneous No. 16029-M of 2003 filed by Vinay Mahajan petitioner is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.