JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. Since this petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Cr. M.P. (MP Nos. 383 and 384 of 2004 for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of criminal Procedure, arise l out of the same FIR, therefore, being the outcome of similar facts, arguments in all these three petitions were heard together but there being slight difference in the question of law involved in an application under Section 438 and those in an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this application is being disposed of by a separate order. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this applications are that on the basis of a Memo No. 8670 dated 2 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 429 IPC and Section 139 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 containing allegations of cheating by the accused/petitioner (hereafter referred to as `the accused') in conspiracy with his co-accused with a view to procure unlawful gain and the investigation followed which is still going on. As per the report of the Investigating Agency the investigation so carried out reveals that co-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 the accused, 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 of the H.P. University done through the accused. Then co-accused S.D. Sharma withdrew the work of printing of questions papers from controller of Examinations without any reason and entrusted the job to co-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 had authorised Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor to jointly exercise the power relating to secrecy work of the University as per practice the powers concerning printing of question papers are exercised by Pro Vice Chancellor as delegatee of the Vice Chancellor. Accused L.R. Jindal was intentionally selected for the printing of job though he had no prior experience of printing of questions 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 co-accused S.D Sharma asked co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj to proceed to Delhi and contact him there in connection with printing of the question papers. Co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj accordingly went to Delhi on 6.1.2002 and contacted accused S.D. Sharma in 7.1.2002 in Himachal Sadan. Accused S.D. Sharma introduced accused L.R. Jindal to co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj and told him than the entire work of printing question papers would be done by the accused only who in conspiracy with co-accused S.D. Sharma gave three sets of bogus quotations to co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj in the names of M/s Customer Care, a firm owned by the accused L.R. Jindal, M/s Mahavir Printer at Okhla and M/s VMAR Enterprises at Delhi. On the basis of these bogus quotations co-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 co-accused S.D.Sharma on 9.1.2002 at Delhi itself. Co-accused P.N Bhardwaj prepared letter of award dated 15.1.2002 and on instructions from co-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 the accused 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 awardee firms M/s Mahavir Printer and M/s VMAR Enterprises did not exist at all. 3. It was also found that his firm M/s Customer Care was merely consultancy firm dealing in cosmetic and gift items and awardee firms M/s Mahavir Printer and M/s VMAR Enterprises did not exist at all. 3. Co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj opened a personal account. He had been drawing hefty advances after getting approval of co-accused S.D. Sharma and deposited the draft issued by the University in the said account and used to make payments to the accused in cash contrary to the established practice of payment through drafts only. The cash payments so made by co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj to the accused amounts to Rs. 87 lacs. Since the accused has 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 co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj, the accused purchased Printing Machine in the name of his son Anmol Jindal DGN House at Faridabad in Haryana where the printing of question papers was done. The receipts regarding advance payments made for the printing work purported to have been signed by the accused 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 the accused had singed quotations and the receipts amounting to Rs. 67 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 co-accused S.D. Sharma connived with co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj to change the co-accused as the Printer as he is a near relation of co-accused S.D. Sharma and to change the entire record d printing and transaction etc. done by the accused. Pursuant to this co-accused S.D. Sharma instructed co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj to proceed to Delhi and to contact Poonam Singh who would sign all the cash receipts sand vouchers etc. hitherto standing; in the name of accused L.R. Jindal. Co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj act accordingly and said Poonam Singh who is running printing business in the named 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 prints because of the aforesaid transactions the University suffered a loss of Rs. 72,40,997,20 paise. 5. Co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj act accordingly and said Poonam Singh who is running printing business in the named 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 prints because of the aforesaid transactions the University suffered a loss of Rs. 72,40,997,20 paise. 5. During interrogation, the accused revealed that the entire printing work in fact had been done for Rs. 29,25,720/- wheraas he received a total payment of Rs. 87 lacs from co-accused P.N. Bhardwaj out of which lion's share had been taken by co-accused S.D.Sharma and a sum of Rs.2 lacs by co-accused P.N.Bhardwaj. Co-accused P.N.Bhardwaj in his interrogation has denied the receipt of money as claimed by accused L.R.Jindal. Interrogation of the accused has further revealed that a sum of Rs.21 lacs on different occasions had been paid by him after receipt of payments from -co-accused P.N.Bhardwaj to co-accused S.D.Sharma at Delhi and Kamal and also to Mango Rani wife of Co-accused S.D.Sharma at Kamal. Co-accused P.N.Bharwaj has also divulged about the entire payment of Rs.67 lacs shown to be made to three different firms to accused L.R. Jindal. The three different tenders collected in the name of the three different firms as per the opinion of handwriting expert are signed by the accused. Co-accused S.D Shanna who to conceal the fact that the printing work was got done from his relative created a parallel record in connivance with co-accused P.N.Bhardwaj and poonam Singh by obtaining forged receipts from Poonam Singh of Rs. 87 lacs 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. The award letter/print orders issued in the name of M/S. Mahavir VMAR Printers and M/S. Enterprises the fake firms are yet to be recovered. 6. The investigation with regard to the hiring 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. The award letter/print orders issued in the name of M/S. Mahavir VMAR Printers and M/S. Enterprises the fake firms are yet to be recovered. 6. The investigation with regard to the hiring 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 co-accused S.D.Sharma is at the initial stage and the lease deed regarding hiring of 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 statute and posting of wife of accused S.D.Sharma as Consultant without justification are also yet to be investigated. 7. The accused who is presently in judicial custody, has moved the present application for bail on the grounds than he has been falsely implicated and harassed in a false case planted against him whereas he has nothing to do with the alleged offences, that he had been arrested on 1.5.2004 and remained in police custody till 7.5.2004 and thereafter he is confined in judicial custody and in so far as his interrogation/recovery of records from him were concerned, those parts of the investigation are complete and he is no more required for investigation and even his premises had been raided and searched and he has co-operated in the investigation which is complete in so far as he is concerned. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Advocate General for the respondent- State and have also gone through the investigation records. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that on inquires conducted into the allegations by two retired High Court Judges, nothing incrimination was found, therefore, the case against the accused is false and he is being unnecessarily harassed. It was further contended that though the prosecution has attempted to make a very grave offence against the accused but mere gravity of the offence is no reason to deny bail to him. It was further contended that though the prosecution has attempted to make a very grave offence against the accused but mere gravity of the offence is no reason to deny bail to him. It is more so because the Investigating Agency had the opportunity to carry out the custodial interrogation of the accused and presently he is in judicial custody and no more required for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, no useful purpose is going to be served by the incarceration of the accused who is not likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence or abscond with a view to evade the trial. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for the accused has relied on three judgments of this Court holding that gravity of offence or severity of punishment by themselves are no grounds for denial of bail. 10. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General contended that the case is of vast magnitude and of grave nature and gravity of the offence is one of the consideration which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, much weigh against the grant of bail to the accused. It was further contended that the investigation in the case regarding certain aspects of the case is at the initial stage and not complete in respect of the allegations which concern the accused as the co-accused and co-conspirators in the case are yet to be thoroughly interrogated and the evidence constituting vital links to prove the commission of the offence, is yet to be collected. It is writ large in the conduct of the accused in conspiring to prepare forged records with a view to cheat and to conspire again with a view to destroy the evidence and also in view of his contacts and the money he has earned by cheating, there is every likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence if released on bail. 11. It may be pointed out that inquiry report referred to in the application ami relied upon as exculpatory, are of no help to the accused. One of such reports has been placed on record and gives the clean chit to the accused persons. 11. It may be pointed out that inquiry report referred to in the application ami relied upon as exculpatory, are of no help to the accused. One of such reports has been placed on record and gives the clean chit to the accused persons. The other report, however, is not on the record but a letter dated 17.4.2003 from Secretary Governor Himachal Pradesh addressed to the Vice Chancellor, the Office which they 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 Secrecy Branch of the H.P. University were self explanatory and were accepted 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: Chancellor of the University makes such report more authentic. However, sud 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 do so. In the case in hand, to find out whether a 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 concern 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 later 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. 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 later 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 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 the 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 than 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 state 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 the rent therefor to the owner without the premises having been used for any purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that these documents are of no 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. I need not refer to the law cited by the learned counsel for the accused in support of the proposition that gravity of the offence and severity of punishment by themselves are not always sufficient grounds to deny bail to the accused because it is a settled position in law. However, apart from gravity of offence and severity of punishment, there are so many other factors which the Court has to keep in view while considering grant or refusal of bail to the accused. However, apart from gravity of offence and severity of punishment, there are so many other factors which the Court has to keep in view while considering grant or refusal of bail to the accused. Some of such factors, besides the above, are the stage of investigation, likelihood of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence, absconding with a view to evade trial etc. 15. In the case in hand, no doubt, the accused had been in police custody for about seven days, which is apparently sufficient time for interrogation of an accused person, but the facts and circumstances of the case, do not justify grant of bail to the accused. A perusal of the records reveals involvement of the accused in a conspiracy of cheating of vast magnitude and, thus, his involvement in the commission of grave offence is prima facie borne by the records. No doubt, not a ground by itself for denying bail, it is one of the factors which must weigh against the grant of bail. 16. The investigation in the case is still on and the co-accused and suspects in the case are yet to be interrogated and vital evidence such as some records are yet to be recovered. Therefore, the present stage of the investigation is yet another factor against the grant of bail to the accused. 17. As per allegations which the material on record prima facies shows, the accused has indulged in fabricating documents and when it was realised that so fabricated documents will constitute evidence against the accused and his co-accused, a parallel record was fabricated to conceal the mis-deeds, is the conduct from which an inference that if released on bail, the accused may cause disappearance of such evidence on which the Investigating Agency is yet to lay hands, can be readily drawn which dis-entitles the accused for being released on bail at this stage. 18. For the above reasons and conclusions, I am of the view that at this stage of the investigation the accused is not entitled to be released on bail. 19. As a result this application is dismissed. 20. Dasti copy, as prated for, on usual terms.