JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 66 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Darlaghat District Solan HP. 2. It is pleaded that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is pleaded that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant. It is pleaded that applicant is a student of Civil Engineering. It is pleaded that applicant will join investigation of the case. It is pleaded that applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence. It is pleaded that applicant will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. Prayer for acceptance of anticipatory bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report in connection with FIR No. 66 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014 registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian penal Code at Police Station Darlaghat, District Solan HP filed. There is recital in police report that applicant Kunal Jaggi is the prime accused and he has connection with other co-accused who recorded entry of pet coke trucks illegally. There is recital in police report that factually the pet coke truck did not unload in the office of Company. There is recital in police report that applicant upon his mobile No. 8557880001 remained practically in contact with other co-accused Harish and truck driver Sunil Kumar since 19.10.2014. There is recital in police report that applicant has caused financial loss to the Company to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupee eight lacs) by way of committing cheating in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. There is recital in police report that custodial investigation of the applicant is essential in the present case in order to ascertain the involvement of other co-accused persons in the criminal offence of cheating and criminal conspiracy. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application: (1) Whether anticipatory bail 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. Prayer for rejection of anticipatory bail application sought. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present bail application: (1) Whether anticipatory bail 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 Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of State and also perused entire record 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 anticipatory bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether applicant is innocent or not cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that applicant is a student and he will join the investigation as and when required by the investigating agency and applicant will not tamper with the prosecution witness and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case 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 to be 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 allegations against the applicant are very heinous and grave in nature qua embezzlement of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupee eight lac). 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 allegations against the applicant are very heinous and grave in nature qua embezzlement of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupee eight lac). Court is of the opinion that custodial investigation of the applicant is essential in the present case in order to ascertain the involvement of other co-accused persons in the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. Court is of the opinion that if anticipatory bail application is granted to the applicant at this stage then investigation of the case will be adversely effected. Court is also of the opinion that if anticipatory bail application is allowed at this stage then interest of the State and general public will also be adversely effected. 8. Submission of learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of the Court that if the applicant is released on bail at this stage then applicant will induce and threat the prosecution witness. In view of the fact that investigation is in initial stage of case and in view of the fact that allegations against the applicant are very serious and grave in nature qua cheating and criminal conspiracy of huge amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupee eight lacs) it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on anticipatory bail at the initial stage of the investigation. Court is of the opinion that custodial investigation of the applicant is essential in the ends of justice because an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupee eight lacs) is involved in the present case. Hence Point No.1 is answered in negative. Final Order 9. In view of my findings upon point No.1 present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the applicant is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. All pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.