Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J.—This is an application preferred by the accused-applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short, ‘the Code’) in connection with offence registered with CID Crime, Rakot Zone Police Station, vide C.R. No. I-9 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 217, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 476 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be summarized as under:— (i) The accused-applicant is serving with a Multinational Public Limited Company known and recognized as ‘Welspun Corporation Limited’, having its registered office at Village Varshamedi, Taluka: Anjar, District: Kutch. The accused-applicant is serving in the company in his capacity as Vice President. The Welspun group of companies, way back in the year 2003, preferred applications for allotment of lands bearing Survey Nos. 652, 692, 665, 667, 668, 670, 684, 692, 890 and few other survey numbers situated at village Varshamedi, Taluka: Anjar, District: Kutch. This demand for the allotment was on the basis of one resolution bearing No. JMN/392003/454/A (R.D.) issued by the State of Gujarat dated 6th June 2003, simplifying the process of allotment of Government land for industrial growth in the District of Kutch, which was severely affected by earthquake. For this purpose, a District Land Valuation Committee was constituted, which comprises of the following persons:— (a) District Collector; (b) District Development Officer; (c) Deputy Town Planner; and (d) Resident Deputy Collector as Member Secretary. (ii) It is the case of the prosecution that the Company approached the then District Collector-original Accused No. 1 Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma. The said Mr. Pradeep Sharma, abusing his position and power as a Collector and with a sole motive to favour the Company and thereby derive monetary gain for himself, made many more allotments in favour of the Company, admeasuring lands upto 1,74,014 sq. meters in gross violation of the resolution of the State of Gujarat dated 6th June 2003, which empowers the Collector to allot only upto two hectares of land i.e. 20,000 sq. meters. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that as a part of criminal conspiracy huge parcels of land were alloted in favour of the Welspun Group of Companies at a very meager price of Rs. 15.00 per sq. meter. meters. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that as a part of criminal conspiracy huge parcels of land were alloted in favour of the Welspun Group of Companies at a very meager price of Rs. 15.00 per sq. meter. It is also the case of the prosecution that when subsequently other proposals for allotment of lands were forwarded to the State Government, the allotments were made at the rate of Rs. 78.00 per sq. meter, as according to the case of the prosecution, the correct rate was Rs. 78.00 and not Rs. 15.00. (iv) It is the case of the prosecution that the Company, in collusion with original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector and other co-accused, by adopting corrupt practices, are responsible for causing loss to the public exchequer and revenue to the tune of Rs. 1,04,61,622.00 and loss of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 15,69,240.00. (v) It is also the case of the prosecution that in the year 2004, the original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector had obtained a mobile sim card bearing No. 9925199799 in the name of the present accused-applicant. This mobile was recovered from the possession of the original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector and the record indicates that the bill amount of the mobile was being paid by the company. For the period between 2004 till 2009, the mobile was used by the original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector and the total aggregate amount towards the bill to the tune of Rs. 2,24,036.00 was paid by the company. (vi) It deserves to be noted that the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the applicant-accused is of the year 2004. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the offence could be unearthed only in the year 2010. It is also the case of the prosecution that, the then District Collector, Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma, not only favoured the Welspun Group of Companies but many other persons including other companies by indulging himself in corrupt practices. (vii) The original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector, Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma was first to be arrested and as on today, about five prosecutions have been instituted against original Accused No. 1, Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma. (vii) The original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector, Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma was first to be arrested and as on today, about five prosecutions have been instituted against original Accused No. 1, Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma. (viii) This Court considered regular bail application of original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector, Mr. Pradeep N.Sharma in connection with the offence registered with CID Crime, Rajkot Zone Police Station vide C.R. No. I-9 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 22th June 2011, rejected the regular bail application of original Accused No. 1. While rejecting the regular bail application of original Accused No. 1, this Court observed as under:— “However, with everything I have observed, I would be failing in my duty if I ignore or avoid to place the following facts on the record of this order :— 1. Prosecution case is very clear. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy was hatched and as a part of the conspiracy, the accused-applicant passed certain orders of allotment of lands in favour of the Company. It is but obvious that the accused-applicant would not, just for the sake of obliging the Company, must have passed the orders of allotment. The question which is haunting the mind of this Court is as to why no action has been taken against the Company in whose favour the parcels of lands came to be allotted and that too huge parcels of lands. If conspiracy is alleged then, why the Company is not an accused or no person from the Company has been made an accused. Investigation is over, charge-sheet is filed. Is it the case that during the entire course o0f investigation the prosecution was unable to find any evidence against the Company or any responsible person of the Company who could be a part and parcel of the conspiracy as alleged. This question has not been satisfactorily answered. 2. If the State is so much concerned about the loss of public exchequer or revenue, then why till this date no concrete steps have been taken to recall the orders of allotment of lands. It is true that now the Company is having a huge manufacturing unit, but still if the earlier allotments are illegal and are said to have been obtained by playing fraud and by commission of offence, then the State can definitely initiate appropriate steps in this regard. It is true that now the Company is having a huge manufacturing unit, but still if the earlier allotments are illegal and are said to have been obtained by playing fraud and by commission of offence, then the State can definitely initiate appropriate steps in this regard. As on today, nothing concrete is coming forth on record to even, prima facie, suggest that the State Government has taken any action in this regard against the Company.” This Court also observed as under:— “I would have leaned in exercising my discretion in favour of the accused – applicant even while accepting the case of the prosecution, prima facie. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the accused – applicant is facing as many as five prosecutions as on today. Had it been one solitary case or one solitary prosecution, the prayer for bail could have been considered. In one of the prosecutions, the accused – applicant has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but at that relevant point of time, that was the only case registered against the accused – applican except one prosecution for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein, till this date, the accused – applicant has not been arrested.” 3. It appears that the State has now decided to proceed against the Company alleged to have received undue favours at the hands of original Accused No. 1 in so far as allotment of lands is concerned. 4. Apprehending arrest at the hands of CID Crime, Rakot Zone Police Station, the accused-applicant herein preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 245 of 2011 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhuj. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj vide order dated 30th June 2011, rejected the bail application. It is at that stage that the accused-applicant preferred present application praying for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned senior Counsel Mr. P.M. Thakkar appearing with Mr. Navin K. Pahwa for the accused-applicant and learned APP, Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the State. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant put forward the following contentions:— (a) The incident in question has taken place in the year 2004. The FIR is filed after a period of 6 years. The delay of 6 years in filing the FIR is indicative of the fact that the same is filed with oblique and ulterior motive. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant put forward the following contentions:— (a) The incident in question has taken place in the year 2004. The FIR is filed after a period of 6 years. The delay of 6 years in filing the FIR is indicative of the fact that the same is filed with oblique and ulterior motive. (b) The accused – applicant is an employee of the Company. The accused – applicant is a Civil Engineer and is in the company engaged as technical expert. No vicarious liability can be fastened in the criminal cases. (c) The accused – applicant has no past history or antecedents. (d) The allotment of the land is made by the authorities in favour of the companies for the purpose of industrial activities. The companies purchased the land at more than the market price. (e) The companies purchased about 1800 acres of land on which about 5 industrial units are established. The average mean price paid by the companies is only Rs. 6/- per sq.meter as against that, the companies have paid Rs. 15/- to Rs. 18/- per sq.meter in respect of 40 acres of land which is the subject matter of the FIR. (f) The total investment made by the companies is about 4327 crores. The State Government and the Central Government has given incentives of about 21276 crores. The annual turn over of the company is about 4547 crores. These companies are the largest employers in the region and employing about 15000 direct or indirect employees. (g) The allotment of the land has become final in the year 2004 and no challenge is ever made. The companies are allowed to put the construction of the industrial units and they have also become operational. (h) The accused – applicant is not a public servant, there was no entrustment of property in the capacity of public servant. No offence under Section 409 of IPC is made out against the accused – applicant. (i) The accused – applicant has not made any forged document for the purpose of cheating. (j) The accused – applicant has not used any ingenuine document as genuine document despite it knowingly to be ingenuine. (k) The accused – applicant is sought to be involved in the offences which are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. (i) The accused – applicant has not made any forged document for the purpose of cheating. (j) The accused – applicant has not used any ingenuine document as genuine document despite it knowingly to be ingenuine. (k) The accused – applicant is sought to be involved in the offences which are triable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. (l) The accused – applicant is serving at the address mentioned in the memo of the petition and staying at Bhuj. The accused – applicant was called by the Investigating Officer, statement was recorded and has fully cooperated in the investigation. (m) The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has incorrectly stated in Para 13 of the judgment that the accused – applicant is shown in the second column of charge sheet. It is submitted that the accused – applicant is permanently serving at the address stated in the memo of the petition and staying at Bhuj-Kutch. The accused – applicant was called by the Investigating Officer and the accused – applicant remained present before him at Gandhinagar, Rajkot and Bhuj on several occasions where his statements were also recorded. The accused – applicant has visited the police station and has fully cooperated in the process of investigation. In view of this, the accused – applicant may kindly be released on anticipatory bail. 7. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a chart which has been prepared to indicate that the accused-applicant is fully cooperating with the investigation and has remained present before the concerned Investigating Agency from time to time. Sr. Received Message Particulars Place Reply No. Date Date 1. 12.8.2010 To remain Accountant with CID Crime, — present Details Gandhinagar 2. 4.12.2010 For Memorandum of CID Crime, 6.12.2010 information Articles – all Rajkot three unit 3. 27.12.2010 For Details of (1) CID Crime, 28.12.2010 information Mahendra Rajkot Rajguru and (2) Arvind Agrawal 4. 5.2.2011 For Details of CID Crime, 12.2.2011 information project in Gandhinagar charge at 2004 and his appoint- ment order 5. 12.2.2011 For Details of CID Crime, 15.2.2011 information all unit Gandhinagar 6. 8.3.2011 For Power of CID Crime, 9.3.2011 information attorney of Rajkot A.K.C./ Rajguru/ A. Agrawal 7. 14.3.2011 For Details of CID Crime, 16.3.2011 information A.K.C. Rajkot 8. 23.7.2011 To remain A.K.C. at CID Crime, - present Gandhinagar Gandhinagar on 8.7.2011 9. 12.2.2011 For Details of CID Crime, 15.2.2011 information all unit Gandhinagar 6. 8.3.2011 For Power of CID Crime, 9.3.2011 information attorney of Rajkot A.K.C./ Rajguru/ A. Agrawal 7. 14.3.2011 For Details of CID Crime, 16.3.2011 information A.K.C. Rajkot 8. 23.7.2011 To remain A.K.C. at CID Crime, - present Gandhinagar Gandhinagar on 8.7.2011 9. 14.5.2010 To remain A.K.C. at CID Crime - present Gandhinagar 10. 22.9.2010 To remain A.K.C. at CID Crime - present Gandhinagar 11. 6.2.2011 Information Information of CID Crime - land applica- tions filed by the company 8. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Kodekar appearing on behalf of the State submitted that at the relevant point of time when the Company was alloted land at a meager price of Rs. 15.00 by the Committee headed by the original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector, the accused-applicant herein was looking after the affairs at Kutch-Bhuj, where the Company was desirous of putting up industrial plant. Learned APP further submitted that though the accused-applicant is a paid employee of the Company, still there is material to show that he was in touch with the then District Collector i.e. original Accused No. 1, all the time till the orders of allotments were passed. Learned APP further submitted that a sim card in the name of the accused-applicant was being used by original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector and the bill amount was also being paid by the Company, which is indicative and suggestive of the fact that the Company did receive undue favour from original Accused No. 1, who, in his capacity as public servant, adopted corrupt practices. Learned APP, therefore, submitted that since there is a prima-facie case against the accused-applicant, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. The learned APP further submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the Police Inspector, CID Crime, Bhuj. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire affidavit-in-reply, but it would be expedient to quote paragraphs 8,9,10,11 and 12 of the affidavit-in-reply, which read as under:— “8. It is further respectfully submitted that from item No. 5 to 9 of the aforesaid mentioned chart, it clearly shows the active participation of the present petitioner in fixing the rate of Rs. It is further respectfully submitted that from item No. 5 to 9 of the aforesaid mentioned chart, it clearly shows the active participation of the present petitioner in fixing the rate of Rs. 15.00 per sq.meter without even calling for the District Land Valuation Committee. 9. It is further case of the investigating agency that so far as materials collected by the investigating agency against the present petitioner herein is that the SIM Card bearing Mobile No. 9925199799 was in the name of Shri Asim Niranjan Chakraborty i.e. petitioner herein given by company. The said mobile with SIM Card was utilised by the Accused No. 1 from the year 2004 to 2009 and the bill incurred thereon of Rs. 2,24,036.00 (Rupees two lacs twenty four thousand thirty six only) was paid by Welspun India Limited. The separate offence has been registered against Accused No. 1 being C.R. No. I-3 of 2010. Another material collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner herein is to facilitate providing the contract of corrugated boxes to the company in the name and style of M/s.Value Packaging Factory in which wife of the Accused No. 1 Mrs. Shyamal Pradeepkumar Sharma was 30% partner. By awarding this contract to the wife of Accused No. 1 the favour was obtained by the company for illegal gain. This role of the petitioner is causing huge loss of public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 1,20,30,824 (Rupees one crore twenty lacs thirty thousand eight hundred twenty four only) by way of collusion with Accused No. 1 in order to gain the economic profit for his company. 10. It is further respectfully submitted that during the course of investigation in the present offence, the petitioner was examined as witness on 9th March, 2011. It is relevant to note over here at this stage that after examining other witnesses and material collected during the course of investigation my predecessor has sought for permission to arrest the petitioner herein vide letter dated 31st March 2011 and the superior officers has granted the permission of arrest vide his order dated 30th July 2011. 11. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has tried to trace him on the given addresses at Vadodara and Anjar, but the petitioner herein could not be found and hence it is not correct to say that the petitioner herein has cooperated with the investigating agency. 12. 11. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has tried to trace him on the given addresses at Vadodara and Anjar, but the petitioner herein could not be found and hence it is not correct to say that the petitioner herein has cooperated with the investigating agency. 12. Looking to the nature and gravity as well as wide spectrum of the offence which has directly bearing upon the public life, custodial interrogation by the investigating agency is essential for eliciting the truth. Hence, in the interest of justice, no interference is called for utilizing discretion in favour of the petitioner herein; hence this petition deserves to be dismissed.” 9. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sim card bearing Mobile No. 9925199799 was not in the name of the petitioner. The sim card was issued by Vodafone, a mobile company, in the name of the Company. The sim card was part of the close user group (CUG). The bills which were raised on such sim card number are also paid by the Company. The mention of the name of the accused – applicant after the name of the Company is only for the account purpose as name of some employee is required to be given for getting benefit of CUG. It is stated that the sim card is never allotted or used by the accused – applicant. 10. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant and learned APP, appearing on behalf of the State, I shall now proceed to consider whether discretion can be exercised in favour of the accused-applicant or not. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent pronouncement has made the position of law very clear so far as Section 438 of the Code is concerned. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694, the Supreme Court has held as under: 93. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large number of undertrials are languishing in jail for a long time even for allegedly committing very minor offences. This is because Section 438 Cr.P.C. has not been allowed its full play. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large number of undertrials are languishing in jail for a long time even for allegedly committing very minor offences. This is because Section 438 Cr.P.C. has not been allowed its full play. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia’s case (Supra) clearly mentioned that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary because it was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and before that other provisions for grant of bail were sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. It is not extraordinary in the sense that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Some courts of smaller strength have erroneously observed that Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Those orders are contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia’s case (Supra). According to the report of the National Police Commission, the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the courts need to take serious notice of it. When conviction rate is admittedly less than 10%, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. 95. The gravity of charge and exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court. 96. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The direction must be exercised on the basi of the available material and the facts of the particulars case. In cases, where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. 97. The direction must be exercised on the basi of the available material and the facts of the particulars case. In cases, where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. 97. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. Whether the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to limitation of Section 437 Cr.P.C.? 98. The question which arises for consideration is whether the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are unguided or uncanalised or Constitution Bench in Sibbia’s case (Supra) has clearly observed that there is no justification for reading into Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the limitations mentioned in Section 437 Cr.P.C.. The Court further observed that the plentitude of the Section must be given its full play. The Constitution Bench has also observed that the High Court is not right in observing that the accused must make out a “special case” for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a dead letter. The Court observed that “We do not see why the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be suspected as containing something volatile or incendiary, which needs to be handled with the greatest care and caution imaginable.” 122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 12. It is not in dispute that this Court rejected regular bail application of original Accused No. 1, the then District Collector Mr. Pradeep N. Sharma by a very exhaustive order dated 22nd June 2011. While deciding the regular bail application of original Accused No. 1, this Court wondered as to why no action has been taken against the Company. It appears that the Investigating Agency from August 2010 onwards started interrogating the accused-applicant herein. It also appears that for number of times, the accused-applicant had appeared before the Investigating Agency and appears to have adduced the necessary information and material to facilitate the investigation. The investigation got completed and charge-sheet also came to be filed against original Accused No. 1 and few other co-accused. It also appears that for number of times, the accused-applicant had appeared before the Investigating Agency and appears to have adduced the necessary information and material to facilitate the investigation. The investigation got completed and charge-sheet also came to be filed against original Accused No. 1 and few other co-accused. However, even at that point of time, the Investigating Agency did not deem fit to file charge-sheet against the present the accused-applicant. However, the fact remains that the entire investigation is over. The only formality, which now needs to be completed, is to file charge-sheet against the accused-applicant after showing his formal arrest. At this stage, I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the prosecution case against the accused-applicant and it is not desirable in view of the fact that, it will be for the trial Court to pronounce judgment on the merits of the evidence but, it is necessary to say this much to make it clear that, I have taken into consideration the guiding principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Stalingappa Mhetre (Supra) so far as grant of anticipatory bail is concerned and the following guiding principles which are as under:— 1. Whether releasing the accused on bail is in any way forbidden by any statutory provision ? 2. Whether he would intimidate the witnesses or win over them for getting support to his defence and/or for abstaining from supporting the prosecution ? 3. Whether he would be available easily at the time of his trial and would submit to the custody if convicted and sentenced at last or would flee and would not be available ? 4. Whether he would tamper with the evidence ? 5. Whether he would commit like-wise or any other offence or wrong directly or indirectly remaining behind curtain ? 6. Whether he would be retributive or revengeful or retaliative, i.e. whether his release will endanger safety of the persons, viz. Complainant and witness or other concerned or property ? 7. Whether his own safety is likely to be endangered ? 8. Whether larger good, national interest, social order, national security, public safety and/or health are likely to be jeopardised ? 9. Complainant and witness or other concerned or property ? 7. Whether his own safety is likely to be endangered ? 8. Whether larger good, national interest, social order, national security, public safety and/or health are likely to be jeopardised ? 9. The nature and gravity of offence being shocking and alarming or barbaric and day in and day out its effect spreads panic amongst the people or Section of the people or damages civilization in the society turning back to jungle law ? 10. Other peculiar circumstances of each case appearing on record, dictating the exercise of discretion in particular way. 13. Taking into consideration the fact that the accused-applicant is a paid employee working as a Vice President of Welspun Corporation Ltd. and most importantly taking into consideration the fact that he has cooperated with the investigation so far and has fully agreed to co-operate further and join the investigation, I am of the view, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Stalingappa Mhetre (Supra), that custodial interrogation should be avoided. 14. I am of the view that practically now nothing is to be investigated in the matter. The investigation is over long time back and charge-sheets have been filed against the respective other co-accused. However, at the relevant point of time, the Investigating Agency did not deem fit to arraign the accused-applicant as one of the accused. Even, while rejecting the regular bail application of the accused-applicant, I have observed as stated in the earlier part of this order that, I would have leaned in exercising my discretion in favour of original Accused No. 1 also even while accepting case of the prosecution prima-facie. But, for the fact that original Accused No. 1, in his capacity as a public servant, is now facing not less than five prosecutions and there was prime evidence to come to the conclusion that, he would have absconded. I have considered this aspect very exhaustively in the order dated 22nd June 2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3934 of 2011. 15. In the present case, the accused-applicant is aged about 55 years. He is serving with Welspun Corporation Ltd. past couple of years. He has cooperated with the investigation so far and has also undertaken to further co-operate and join the investigation, if necessary. He has his own roots in the society and also a family. 15. In the present case, the accused-applicant is aged about 55 years. He is serving with Welspun Corporation Ltd. past couple of years. He has cooperated with the investigation so far and has also undertaken to further co-operate and join the investigation, if necessary. He has his own roots in the society and also a family. Therefore, there is no apprehension of accused-applicant absconding or fleeing from justice. The offences otherwise also are triable by a magistrate and the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence. 16. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that though there may be a prima-facie case against the accused-applicant, still discretion can be exercised in favour of the accused-applicant keeping in mind the factors and parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (Supra) and also taking into consideration the fact that custodial interrogation is not necessary. 17. In the result, the Application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. I direct the accused-applicant to join the investigation and fully co-operate with the investigation. In the event of the arrest of the accused-applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of like amount on following conditions that he: [A] shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. [B] shall remain present before the Investigating Agency on 16thSeptember 2011 between 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.; [C] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; [D] shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders; [E] will not leave India without the permission of the Court and, if is holding a Passport, shall surrender the same before the trial Court within a week; 18. It would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. It would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if ultimately granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if remanded to the police custody upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 19. It goes without saying that any observations touching the merits of the case, are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of the final opinion in the main matter. 20. With these directions, the Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. P P P P P