JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J 1. SH. Krishan Chander, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla is present in Court alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 2. F.I.R. No. RC962012A0002 was registered at Police Station, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, H.P. on 22.2.2012, under the provisions of Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 27.2.2013 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. The said interim order is in operation till date. Ms. Anita Dogra, learned Central Government Counsel under instructions from Sh. Krishan Chander, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla states that during the course of investigation petitioner has fully cooperated. Also the respondent has not assailed judgment dated 5.2.2013, passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 54 of 2013, titled as Abhishek Goyal versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla in relation to the other co-accused who in fact is the son of the present petitioner. Also the wife of the present petitioner is on bail as respondent did not oppose her application for grant of bail. 3. IT is seen that the present F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner, his brother, wife and son. All the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail. The allegation against the present petitioner is only to the effect that he helped his son and wife, who took loan from the bank in siphoning of the funds. It is also stated at Bar that investigation is almost complete and challan is likely to be filed in the near future. 4. IN view of the fact that the petitioner has fully cooperated during investigation and the petitioner's case is not different than that of the other co-accused who already stand enlarged on bail, I am of the considered view that prima facie petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. This Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required at all. This Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. 5. HAVING taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. 6. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 27.2.2013 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the investigating officer. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.