JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. 1. Present bail application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with case FIR No. 138 of 2014 dated 18.6.2014 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kangra Himachal Pradesh. 2. It is pleaded that FIR has been registered on false and frivolous ground just to harass the applicant. It is further pleaded that complainant Bank i.e. Branch Manager Canara Bank Branch Office opposite Old Bus Stand Kangra District Kangra HP filed complaint alleging that Canara Bank advanced loan to one Sh Rakesh Verma for purchase of tractor to the tune of Rs.4,70,000/- (Four lac seventy thousand) and one JCB to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lac) on dated 30.8.2013 and 17.10.2013 respectively. It is further pleaded that payments were credited in the account of dealer of the said vehicles i.e. M/s Sood Enterprises to whom the applicant is working as Manager. It is further pleaded that when the payment was made in the account of M/s Sood Enterprises then the amount was to be utilized by M/s Sood Enterprises only. It is further pleaded that all records pertaining to the transaction stood seized by the investigating agency and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. It is further pleaded that applicant is working as Manager with M/s Sood Enterprises and undertaking to abide any terms and conditions imposed by the Court. It is further pleaded that applicant is not required for investigation purpose. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought. 3. Per contra police report filed pleaded therein that FIR No. 138 of 2014 dated 18.6.2014 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Kangra HP. There is recital in police report that applicant Jai Parkash Sood while exercising the powers of Manager in M/s Sood Enterprises issued advance payment receipts. There is further recital in police report that applicant Jai Parkash has also signed the papers on behalf of Sh Samir Sood. There is further recital in police report that sample of signature would be sent to RFSL for comparison with admitted hand writing. There is further recital in police report that applicant Jai Parkash has also signed the papers on behalf of Sh Samir Sood. There is further recital in police report that sample of signature would be sent to RFSL for comparison with admitted hand writing. There is further recital in police report that applicant Jai Parkash, Samir Sood, Rakesh Verma loanee and Manager Gopal Krishan are all involved in the embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand). There is further recital in police report that applicant will induce the prosecution witness and prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application: (1) Whether application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application. (2) Final order. 5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused entire records carefully. Finding upon Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and on this ground present bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. The fact whether applicant is innocent or not cannot be decided at this stage. The same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that recovery already stood effected by the investigating agency and nothing is to be recovered and applicant will not influence or temper the prosecution witness and shall join investigation as and when directed by the investigating agency and on this ground anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case the allegation against the applicant are very grave and heinous in nature qua embezzlement of public money to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand). Specimen of hand writings are still to be obtained from the applicant in order to compare with the signature of receipts of advance payment issued by applicant Jai Parkash. It is held that custodial investigation is essential in the present case in order to ascertain the truth qua embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs. 19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventeen thousand). It is held that if anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant at this stage then investigation of the case will be adversely effected qua embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand). In the present case public exchequer to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand) is involved. It is well settled law that if there is conflict between the public interest and individual interest then public interest always prevails over the individual interest in the ends of justice. It is well settled law that grant or refusal of anticipatory bail depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In anticipatory bail application Court has to keep balance keeping in view the fact that no prejudice should be caused to free fair and full investigation. The facts and case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant reported in AIR 2011 SC 312 titled Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 340 titled State of Kerala Vs. Raneef are entirely different. The facts and case law cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant reported in AIR 2011 SC 312 titled Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 340 titled State of Kerala Vs. Raneef are entirely different. Hence the facts of the case law cited supra are not applicable in the present case because in the present case there is allegation of embezzlement of public amount to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand) against the applicant from public exchequer. It is held that in order to conduct fair investigation and in order to ascertain the truth qua embezzlement of amount to the tune of Rs.19,70,000/- (Nineteen lac seventy thousand) custodial investigation is essential in the present case. Hence point No.1 is answered in negative against the applicant. Final order. 8. In view of the above stated facts present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present anticipatory bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. All pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.