JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and similar question of facts are involved in Cr. M.P.(M) No. 396 of 2004, therefore, all these three matters were heard together but so far as legal aspects are concerned, those are slightly different in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 396 of 2004 which is an application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C., therefore, despite the arguments having been heard together these two applications (Cr. M.Ps No. 383 of 2004) are being disposed of by this common order and Cr. MP.P. (M.P No. 396 of 2004 will be disposed of by a separate order. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of these applications are that on the basis of a Memo No. 8670 dated 2nd September, 2003 from the Director general of Police (Vigilance) H.P. P.S. A C. Zone, Shimla registered case F.I.R. No.4 of 2003 dated 2.9.2003 under Section 420 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 containing allegations of cheating and misconduct by the petitioners/accused (hereafter referred to as `the accused') in conspiracy with their co-accused with a view to procure unlawful gain to themselves and co-accused and the investigation followed which is still going on. As per the report of the Investigating Agency the investigation so carried out reveals that accused S.D. Sharma joined as Vice Chancellor of the H.P. University on 18.10.2001 and soon after identified the work relating to printing of question papers wherein there was ample scope to make money because of the secrecy and the expenditure not being subject to audit. In December 2001 he visited Delhi and met co-accused LR. Jindal his relative, who was running a consultancy firm dealing in cosmetic and gift items in the name of "Customer Care" and conspired with him to get the entire work relating to printing of question papers from of the H.P. University done through LR. Jindal. Then he withdrew the work of printing of question papers Controller of Examinations without any reason and entrusted the job to accused P.N. Bhardwaj the then Deputy Registrar attached to the office of Vice Chancellor vide order dated 2.1.2002 whereas according to the statute all the duties concerning examination, including setting and printing of question papers, vests in Controller of Examination. Besides the Executive Council of the University by a resolution and authorised Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor to jointly exercise the power relating to secrecy work of the University and as per practice the powers concerning printing of question papers are exercised by pro Vice Chancellor as delegate of the Vice Chancellor. Co-accused L.R. Jindal was intentionally selected for the printing job though he had no prior experience of printing of question papers which is a highly technical job. As per the records, the average expenditure on printing of the question papers used to be Rs. 22 lacs per year. By the intentional departure made by accused S.D. Sharma in the matter the expenditure jumped to Rs. 74 lacs in the year 2002-03. The investigation further revealed that accused S.D. Sharma asked accused P.N. Bhardwaj to proceed to Delhi and contact him there in connection with printing of the question papers. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj Accordingly went to Delhi on 6.1.2002 and contacted accused S.D. Sharma on 7.1.2002 in Himachal Sadan. Accused S.D. Sharma introduced co-accused L.R. Jindal to accused P.N. Bhardwaj and told him that the entire work of printing question papers would be done by L.R. Jindal only who in conspiracy with accused S.D. Sharma gave three sets of bogus quotations to accused P.N. Bhardwaj in the names of M/S. Mahavir printer at Okhla and M/S. VMAR Enterprises at Delhi. On the basis of these bogus quotations accused P.N.Bhardwaj prepared a comparative statement and contrary to the codal norms proposed distribution of the entire printing work to the aforesaid three firms instead of one single firm who had quoted the lowest rate and the proposal was approved by accused S.D.Sharma on 9.1.2002 at Delhi itself. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj prepared letter of award dated 15.1.2002 and on instructions from accused S.D. Sharma proceeded to Kurukshetra on 26.1.2002 and handed over the award letter to accused L.R. Jindal. During investigation, it was found that accused L.R. Jindal who got the work of printing neither had any printing press nor any prior experience of printing work relating to the examinations. It was also found that his firm M/S. Customer Care was merely consultancy firm dealing in cosmetic and gift items and awards firms M/S. Mahavir Printer and M/S. VMAR Enterprises did not exist at all. 3. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj opened a personal account. It was also found that his firm M/S. Customer Care was merely consultancy firm dealing in cosmetic and gift items and awards firms M/S. Mahavir Printer and M/S. VMAR Enterprises did not exist at all. 3. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj opened a personal account. He had been drawing hefty advances after getting approval of accused S.D. Sharma and deposited the draft issued by the University in the said account and used to make payments to accused L.R.Jindal in cash contrary to the established practice of payment through draft only. The cash payments so made by accused P.N Bhardwaj to co-accused L.R. Jindal amounts to Rs. 87 lacs and odd. Since co-accused L.R Jindal have no capacity to execute the printing work, therefore, he sublet the work [ initially to M/S. Thomson Printers and M/S. Gay printers at Panchkula. After having received the amounts from accused P.N. Bhardwaj co-accused L.R. Jindal purchased Printing Machine in the name of his son Anmol Jindal DGN House a Faridabad in Haryana where the printing of question papers was done. The receipts regarding advance payments made for the printing work had been signed by accused L.R. Jindal on behalf of Custom Care, by A. Aggarwal on behalf of M/S [ Mahavir Printers and by Naresh Kumar on behalf of M/S. VMAR Enterprises and the aforesaid quotations and receipts were sent to handwriting expert who has opined that accused L.R. Jindal had signed quotations and the receipts amounting to Rs.671 lacs but for the remaining amount no opinion could be given due to lack of sufficient material. 4. When the investigation in the case progressed accused S.D. Sharma connived with accused P.N. Bhardwaj to change co-accused L.R. Jindal as the printers he is a near relation of accused S.D. Sharma and to change the entire record of printing and transaction etc. done by co-accused L.R. Jindal. Pursuant to this accused S.D.Sharma instructed accused P.N. Bhardwaj to proceed to Delhi and to contact Poonam Singh who would sign all the cash receipts and vouchers etc. hitherto standing in the name of co-accused L.R. Jindal. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj acted accordingly and said Poonam Singh who is running printing business in the name of M/S. Stream India provided three quotations of different firms which were also found fake and bogus. hitherto standing in the name of co-accused L.R. Jindal. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj acted accordingly and said Poonam Singh who is running printing business in the name of M/S. Stream India provided three quotations of different firms which were also found fake and bogus. Calculated on the basis of the average expenses on printing because of the aforesaid transactions the University suffered a loss of Rs. 72,40,997.20 paise. 5. During interrogation, co-accused L.R. Jindal revealed that the entire printing work in fact had been done for Rs. 29,25,728/- whereas he received a total payment of Rs. 87 lacs from accused P.N. Bhardwaj out of which lion's share had been taken by accused S.D. Sharma and a sum of Rs. 2 lacs by accused P.N. Bhardwaj. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj in his interrogation has denied the receipt of money as claimed by accused L.R. Jindal. Interrogation of co-accused L.R. Jindal has further revealed that a sum of Rs. 21 lacs on different occasions had been paid by him after receipt of payments by accused P.N.Bhardwaj to accused S.D. Sharma at Delhi and Kamal and also to Mango Rani wife of accused S.D. Sharma at Kamal. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj has also to Mango Rani wife of accused S.D.Shrama at Kamal. Accused P.N Bhardwaj has also divulged about the entire payment of Rs.87 lacs shown to be made to three different firms to accused L.R. Jindal. The three different tenders collected in the name of three different firms as per the opinion of handwriting expert are also opined to have been signed by accused L.R. Jindal. Accused S.D. Sharma who concealed the fact that the printing work was got done from his relative L.R. Jindal created a parallel record in connivance with accused P.N. Bhardwaj and Poonam Singh by obtaining forged receipts from Poonam Singh for Rs. 87 lacs and with a view to mislead the Investigating Agency and to exculpate himself. Said Poonam Singh was made to issue the fake receipts by promising to give her the printing work for the year 2003 and also by making payment of Rs. 2 lacs to her. The investigation in this regard is still incomplete and in progress because the unlawful transactions had been carried out at places outside Shimla and various aspects of the matter are yet to be investigated. 2 lacs to her. The investigation in this regard is still incomplete and in progress because the unlawful transactions had been carried out at places outside Shimla and various aspects of the matter are yet to be investigated. The award letter/print orders issued in the name of M/s Mahavir Printers and M/s VMAR Enterprises the fake firms are yet to be recovered. 6. The investigation with regard to the hiring of the Ganga Cottage at Shimla on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,05,000/- without any justification and hiring a building of one Devinder Kumar Son of Mr. Suraj Bhan, the then chancellor of H.P. University without any justification and with oblique motive by misuse of official position by accused S.D. Sharma is at the initial stage and the lease deed regarding hiring on the premises at Panchkula with a view to favour the then Chancellor Mr. Suraj Bhan is yet to be recovered from accused S.D. Sharma which is within his possession/knowledge. The allegations of appointment in the University made in violation of the status and posting of wife of accused S.D Sharma as Consultant without justification are also yet to be investigated. 7. The accused persons have applied for grant of anticipatory ball on the grounds that as Vice-Chancellor of the University accused S.D. Sharma had no full knowledge of the papers put up before him concerning the Secrecy Branch because the name of the Printing Press and rates etc. 7. The accused persons have applied for grant of anticipatory ball on the grounds that as Vice-Chancellor of the University accused S.D. Sharma had no full knowledge of the papers put up before him concerning the Secrecy Branch because the name of the Printing Press and rates etc. are kept a secrecy and are not mentioned in the noting, that the Chancellor of the H.P. University got conducted inquiries into the affairs of the University by two retired Judges of the High Court on the basis of whose reports the Chancellor took the decision that he further inquiry or investigation in the matter was required, that after the change of the Government is Himachal Pradesh a fresh inquiry has ordered as a consequence whereof of the F.I.R. has been registered and accused S.D Sharma had to apply for anticipatory bail twice and in one of such applications he was directed on 4.9.2003 to join investigation and on 15.9.2003 when the application was finally disposed of the directions were issued to the State that in case the petitioner is required to be arrested he would be given a ten days prior notice to seek remedy as may be available to him, that accused S.D. Sharma had joined the investigation several times as and when required by the Investigating Agency, that his specimen signatures have been obtained, that there is no sanction by the Chancellor to register the case, that the reports given by the two retired Judges absolved him of any criminal responsibility and he is totally innocent and has wrongly been implicated in the case, that in case he is arrested his entire career will be spelled, that he is always willing to join the investigation as and when so required and had also joined that investigation as and when he was required. Accused P.N. Bhardwaj has claimed anticipatory bail on the grounds that he had already joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency and handed over the entire record which he was required to produce the joined the investigation for more than 40 times whereas he is innocent and has not committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him and that if released on bail he will not jump the bail nor shall tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not leave the territory of India without the permission of this Court. 8. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the report submitted by the Investigating Agency and the investigation records. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused persons that in view of the inquiries ordered into the matter the then Chancellor which were conducted by two retired Judges of the High Court have completely absolved the accused persons in the matter and after due consideration of such reports the Chancellor himself had formed the opinion and taken the decision that no further inquiry/investigation in the allegations was required. It was further contended that the accused persons have acted strictly in accordance with law and procedure any have not committed any irregularity muchless any illegality amounting to any offence in the discharge of their duties and have always joined the investigation as an where they were required to do so and have fully cooperated with the Investigating Agency and have placed the records/information whatever was available with them before the Investigating Agency. It was further contended that premises of accused SB Sharma were raided and information about his accounts and those of his family members was collected by the Investigating Agency. In any case if the accuse persons are further required by the investigating Agency for the purpose d investigation they are always willing to join and cooperate in the investigation a they have been doing, therefore, in the aforesaid background their custody of interrogation is not at all required and they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Per Contra, the learned Advocate General referring to the investing " records contended that the criminal misconduct and the cheating committed by Bis accused persons is of a very vast magnitude and the transactions amounting to such offences are spread over various places and the co-conspirators and the l accused themselves are influential persons and the investigation is at the initial stage and cannot be taken to a logical end unless custodial interrogation of the accused persons is allowed. It was further contended that the accused no doubt had been joining investigation but have not been cooperating inasmuch as some incriminating documents are still to be recovered from them which they have not handed over though such documents must be in their possession or they must have the knowledge where such documents are. It was further contended that the accused no doubt had been joining investigation but have not been cooperating inasmuch as some incriminating documents are still to be recovered from them which they have not handed over though such documents must be in their possession or they must have the knowledge where such documents are. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused persons is necessarily required to unearth the crime and the co-conspirators and to collect the missing links of the evidence. 11. The main emphasis for the accused is on the inquiry reports submitted by two retired Judges of the High Court pursuant to the orders of the then Chancellor to look into the allegations about the functioning of the University. One of such reports has been placed on record and gives and clean chit to the accused persons. The other report, however, is not on the record but a letter dated 17.4.2003 from Secretary to Governor Himachal Pradesh addressed to the Vice Chancellor, the Office which the accused S.D. Sharma was then holding, reveals that the Chancellor after having gone through the Special Inquiry Reports submitted by the two retired Judges with regard to the errors in the question papers and enhancement of expenditure in the Secrecy Branch of the H.P. University were self explanatory and were accepted by the Chancellor and as a consequence the Chancellor decided that the matter did not need any further inquiry/investigation. 12. I am not unaware of the tradition that the report (s) made by an Inquiring Authority holding the status of a retired High Court Judge has a very high probative value and its acceptance by the Governor of a State though in his capacity as a Chancellor of the University makes such report more authentic. However, such traditions cannot be adopted as a rule of law. Court is duty bound to look into the merits and demerits of any action/conduct of any authority whosoever he may be if its judicial duty requires it to so. In the case in hand, to find out whether a prima facie case as sought to be made out by the prosecution against the accused persons is made out or they are innocent as suggested by the aforesaid exculpatory reports and acceptance thereof by the Chancellor, I have gone through the available material on record in this regard. In the case in hand, to find out whether a prima facie case as sought to be made out by the prosecution against the accused persons is made out or they are innocent as suggested by the aforesaid exculpatory reports and acceptance thereof by the Chancellor, I have gone through the available material on record in this regard. A perusal of the report placed on the record reveals that it mainly concerns with the higher expenses and the printing mistakes in the question papers. The first part of the report is based on information received but does not disclose as to how and from whom this information was obtained/received. The letter part about the expenditure is based on the information supplied to the Inquiring Authority by the University authorities, some of such information in the form of Annexures has been placed on the file. However, such information available on in the form of Annexures with the application of accused P.N. Bhardwaj, according to the prosecution, was mainly supplied by accused P. N. Bhardwaj who admits vide Para-7 of his application for bail that he had participated actively in both inquires conducted by the Hon'ble Judges. The report itself does not indicate that the information relied upon to arrive at the final conclusion about the expenditure was obtained from a source other then accused P.N. Bhardwaj, Evidently, an inquiry in which one of the accused himself admittedly took active part and gave such information on which the Inquiring Authority relied to arrive at its conclusion itself is a reason not to lay any reliance on the Inquiry report at this stage and it is more so because of the revelations by the material now collected by the Investigating Agency. 13. The acceptance of such reports by the Chancellor is also of no use and consequence against the aforesaid background and also for the reason that there are allegations that accused S.D. Sharma hired the premises of son of the then Chancellor without any necessity and paid and rent therefore to the owner without the premises having been used for any purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that these documents are of help to the accused for the purpose of bail because it prima facie appears to be a camouflage to protect the accused persons and other co-conspirators. 14. Therefore, I am of the view that these documents are of help to the accused for the purpose of bail because it prima facie appears to be a camouflage to protect the accused persons and other co-conspirators. 14. A perusal of the material collected by the prosecution prima facie reveals the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offences alleged to have been committed by them which are of grave nature, vast magnitude , and prima facie well planned and major part of the transactions constituting the t offences having been carried out at different places outside the State. There is alarming increase in the corruption by public servants and instances of highly placed persons involving in corruption by misusing their positions are not lacking. Therefore, it is in the public interest and the interest of the administrations of criminal justice that such offences are thoroughly investigated and for that purpose the Investigating Agency is not obstructed from carrying out its onerous task of unearthing the corruption and the corrupt so that the guilty are brought to the book Against this background, the manner in which the present offences are alleged to I have been committed in a meticulously planned manner and the gravity and the magnitude of the offences are the factors which must weigh against the grant of bar to the accused persons. 15. No doubt the accused persons have been joining the investigation, however, still they are suspected of being in possession of some material information and documents which are not forthcoming as yet nor can such documents which are not forthcoming as yet more can such documents and material information be expected to come forth in a situation when the accused is armed with an order of anticipatory bail and has held high official positions and have contacts at the higher levels. The Court while considering the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to strike a balance between the individual rights and the rights of the society and to ensure that liberty of a person within the framework of the Constitution and criminal justice administration are protected. 16. In Directorate of Enforcement & Another v. P.V.Prabhakar Rao ( 1997 (6) SCC 647 ), the Apex Court held as under- "8. 16. In Directorate of Enforcement & Another v. P.V.Prabhakar Rao ( 1997 (6) SCC 647 ), the Apex Court held as under- "8. Legal position concerning the grant of anticipatory bail requires no repetition particularly in view at the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh which has settled the position well-nigh. Nonetheless, we remind ourselves that the order contemplated under Section 438 of the Code is to be granted or refused by the High Court ora [ Court of Session, after exercising its judicial discretion wisely. The Constitution bench in Gurbaksh Singh said thus : (SCC p.584 m para 21) 21 A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the Civil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatsoever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the its use, is the hall mark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power of grant anticipatory bail. 13. When the learned single Judge himself felt, after going through the records in this case, that the materials already collected were capable of stretching an accusing finger towards the respondent, it was not at all a proper exercise of the discretion by favouring him with an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code." 17. In case State v. Anil Sharma ( 1997 (7) SCC 187 ], the Apex Court held as under- "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in, disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that these entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders". 18 In K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others [ (1998) 4 SCC 80 ], the Apex Court held as under: "5. We do not wish to enter into any detailed discussion on these legal aspects raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as this court in the several decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners has explained the scope of the provisions of Articles 20 (2) and 21 of the Constitutions and Section 486 (Sic 436) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their interrelationship. We may only state in considering a petition for grant of bail, necessarily, if public interest requires detention of citizen of custody for purposes of investigation could be considered and rejected as otherwise there could be hurdles in the investigation even resulting in tampering of evidence. This very aspect has been borne in mind by the High Court On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not think there is any good reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court in refusing bail at this stage of the proceedings. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed." 19. In Surinder Kumar Sikand v. State (2002 Sim L.C. 12), this court held as under- "10. The purpose behind Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to relieve a person from un-necessary arrest or a disagree of being detained in jail before he may apply for regular bail in such cases where he may have been implicated falsely. In Surinder Kumar Sikand v. State (2002 Sim L.C. 12), this court held as under- "10. The purpose behind Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to relieve a person from un-necessary arrest or a disagree of being detained in jail before he may apply for regular bail in such cases where he may have been implicated falsely. Therefore, before granting anticipatory bail, a court must be satisfied that the arrest and detention of the bail petitioner will not be in furtherance of the ends of justice in relation to the case in which he is sought to be apprehended but it will be with some ulterior motive and the object of injuring the petitioner. However, such a satisfaction must be derived from all the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be based on mere allegations of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and his arrest is intended to disgrace and dishonors him. Therefore, the provisions of Section 438 cannot be applied mechanically. The mere assertion that the petitioner would co-operate during investigation in itself is not a sufficient ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the court has to strike a balance between the liberty of the petitioner and operation of the criminal justice system. Therefore, if it is : found that the grant of anticipatory bail will seriously and adversely affect the investigation this ground alone may be sufficient not to allow anticipatory bail." 20. The learned counsel for the accused has drawn my attention to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab & Sarbajit Singh and another v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 1632 ), in support of the contention that the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised by the High Court or the Court of Sessions as the case may be by a wise and careful use of their discretion. By their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do so. While deciding such cases the Judges have to decide the cases as they come before them mindful to keep passion and prejudice out of their decisions. By their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do so. While deciding such cases the Judges have to decide the cases as they come before them mindful to keep passion and prejudice out of their decisions. It was thus contended that in the facts and circumstances as in hand particularly the fact that the accused persons have been joining investigation as and when so required they deserve to be released on bail may be subject to suitable conditions as may be warranted. However, the decisions hereinabove cited are not in conflict with the ratio of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case which does not recognise the right of the accused to bail as indefeasible nor gives preference to the liberty of any individual over the interest of the society. 21. The investigation in the case it yet far from completion. The evidence has to be collected at different places and even such persons are required to be examined interrogated who has been close to the accused persons. It is writ large in the conduct of the accused persons in view of the allegations prima facie supportable by the material on the record that to conceal their criminal acts even parallel records of the transaction were fabricated that they are capable of destroying the material evidence and fabricating false evidence, therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to grant anticipatory bail to them. By virtue of their position and the contacts they appear to be capable by tampering with prosecution evidence and thus impeding the investigation which is still in progress. It is yet another reason to deny anticipatory bail to accused persons. 22. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the accused person are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and the interest of administration of criminal justice will be better served by denying the bail prayed for by them. 23. As a result, both these petitioner merits dismissal and are accordingly dismissed, copy dasti.