Order S. Vaidyanathan, J. 1. Apprehending of being arrested on the accusations set out in FIR No. RC.DST/2013/A0019/CBI/STF/DLT on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, STF, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to 'the respondent) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, one Thiru Dayanidhi Maran, former Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology (MOCIT) (herein after referred to 'the petitioner'), has come forward with a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 16152 of 2015, invoking Section 438 Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side and also taking note of the fact that the FIR has been registered and most of the witnesses have been examined, this Court, by order, dated 30.06.2015 has granted interim anticipatory bail with certain conditions, which reads as under: "7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the facts that the FIR has been registered on 23.07.2013 and most of the witnesses were already examined, I am of the opinion that an interim anticipatory bail could be granted to the petitioner herein for a period of six weeks. Accordingly, interim anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner for a period of six weeks on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases (VIII Additional City Civil Court), Chennai and on further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate for the enquiry. If the petitioner does not co-operate for enquiry, the respondent is at liberty to move before this Court for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail." 2. Aggrieved against the grant of interim anticipatory bail, the respondent/CBI has come forward with a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 18493 of 2015 under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C., seeking for cancellation of interim bail granted by this Court. 3. Aggrieved against the grant of interim anticipatory bail, the respondent/CBI has come forward with a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 18493 of 2015 under Sections 439(2) and 482 Cr.P.C., seeking for cancellation of interim bail granted by this Court. 3. An FIR in No. RC.DST/2013/A0019/CBI/STF/DLT has been registered on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, STF, New Delhi, the respondent herein, for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B r/w 409, 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the three persons, viz., Thiru Dayanidhi Maran (A1/the petitioner herein), who was the then Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology (MOCIT), Government of India, Thiru K.B. Brahamdathan (A2), who was the then Chief General Manager, Chennai Telephones, Chennai during the period 2004-06 and Thiru M.P. Velusamy (A3), who was the then Chief General Manager, BSNL, Chennai during the period 2006-07. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the petitioner, while he was a Union Minister, during the period 2004-2007, by abusing his official position and in collusion with the officials of BSNL, Chennai, viz., A2 and A3 and other unknown officials and in furtherance of conspiracy with dishonest intention, got installed more than 300 telephone connections with ISDN-PRA and ISDN-BRA, Lease Circuit facilities, 19 post paid mobile connections etc., in his residence in the name of the accused Government servants to show these connections illegally under 'service category', thereby no payment was made for the installation and rentals. Further, by not generating any users bill during the said period, misappropriated huge amount which was to be paid to the Government, thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the Government, to the tune of Rs. 1,20,87,769/- and the corresponding gain to himself and others. 4. It is pertinent to note that the relief of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 13.06.2015 for a period of six weeks, is going to expire by 11.08.2015, hence, while the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the one hand, have argued for either continuation of interim bail or grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner till the finalization of accusation proceedings and on the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General of India, while opposing grant of anticipatory bail, has urged for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail. 5. 5. The brief facts narrated in the petition filed by the respondent/CBI, seeking for cancellation of the interim anticipatory bail, are as follows: 6. The petitioner was a Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology during the period June, 2004 to June 2007. While functioning as such, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other officials of BSNL, Chennai and by abusing their official positions, caused huge financial loss to the Government exchequer. The officials, in violation of rules and regulations, facilitated/provided a number of high end telecommunication facilities, i.e. ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network), BRA (Basic Rate Access), PRA (Primary Rate Access), Broad Band Connections and leased line circuits, etc., at the residence of the petitioner and these facilities were treated under 'Service Category" and no bills were raised for the same during the period 2004-07 and thereby huge wrongful loss was caused to the Government of India. According to the respondent, investigation revealed that being a Minister, the petitioner is entitled 3 telephone connections, 1 for his constituency, 1 for Delhi residence and 1 for broad band connection and two mobile connections and 1,50,000 calls per annum and any other connection will be in the name of individual and the billing will be made in the name of the individual. As per BSNL Circular dated 12.10.2006, Executives and non-executives are entitled for residential service telephone connections and there is no provision for providing telephone connection to any Minister under Service Category without the approval of the concerned ministry, i.e. Department of Telecommunications. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner had illegally obtained 364 actual telephone numbers consisting high end connections having 2 PRA, 7 BRAs, 04 leased line circuits and 02 broadband connections at his Gopalapuram residence at Chennai under Service Category without his entitlement. No bills were raised and no payments were made to BSNL, Chennai towards these connections. In order to bring these connections under Service category, the hirer/billing address was provided as the Office of the GM, BSNL, Chennai Telephones. The petitioner had also obtained 19 prepaid mobile SIM cards under service category illegally, without his entitlement from BSNL, Chennai and these SIM cars were used by the staff of SUN TV without payments of due charges to BSNL. 7. The petitioner had also obtained 19 prepaid mobile SIM cards under service category illegally, without his entitlement from BSNL, Chennai and these SIM cars were used by the staff of SUN TV without payments of due charges to BSNL. 7. It is also stated that during the month of December, 2006, the petitioner shifted his residence from Gopalapuram to Boat Club Road, Chennai, by then, A2 had retired and A3 was working as Chief General Manager and a proposal to shift the existing facilities at the new residence was moved, but in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, another 353 high end connections were again obtained illegally under 'service category' without getting the previous connections disconnected. Both the houses of the petitioner at Gopalapuram and Boat Club were provided optical fibre cable connectivity (OFC) illegally. It is also revealed that NIC, New Delhi purchased and installed several video conferencing equipments at Chennai and Delhi residences illegally. The petitioner had also obtained 13 connections at his New Delhi residence from MTNL, New Delhi including ISDN connections under service category, besides 8+8 MBPs leased line circuit was also obtained illegally under service category without entitlement and MTNL, New Delhi never took the approval of DOT for the ISDN and leased line circuits, which clearly established that the ISDN connections and the leased line circuits cannot be provided to anybody, including the minister under service category. These services are immensely required and helpful in running the day to day affairs of a TV channel and these lines were used for the benefit of SUN TV. The investigation also revealed that SUN TV had purchased many EPBAX and other telecommunication equipments amounting to Rs. 50 lacs from a Bangalore based firm, out of which, two exchanges were installed at Gopalapuram, Chennai and Akbar Road, Delhi residences of the petitioner. All the exchanges were so configured/interfaced with the main exchange installed at the then SUN HO, Anna Arivalaya, Chennai that the facilities provided by BSNL/MTNL could have been easily used by the exchange at SUN Head office. The investigation established that the above said illegal telephone connections were used to the benefit of SUN TV and the petitioner and other accused were running private mini-exchanges from their houses illegally. The investigation established that the above said illegal telephone connections were used to the benefit of SUN TV and the petitioner and other accused were running private mini-exchanges from their houses illegally. However, the petitioner in conspiracy with the then CGM, BSNL, Chennai got prepared a false and ante-dated reply wherein, it was projected that he had only one connection. During investigation, an estimated loss amounting to Rs. 1,78,71,391 was arrived at towards the wrongful loss caused to the Government exchequer and corresponding to the accused persons. The petitioner was examined twice in the month of January and October, 2014 and he denied his involvement in the crime and shifted the burden on others for providing the facilities without any specific demands. He also gave evasive answers despite having the exclusive knowing knowledge about the same. The petitioner was directed to attend at CBI, New Delhi on 1.7.2015, however, in the mean time, he got interim anticipatory bail on 29.06.2016. The petitioner was granted bail on condition that he should co-operate with the investigation, failing which, liberty was given to the respondent to move cancellation of the bail. The petitioner though appeared for examination on 1.7.2015 to 3.7.2015 and examined thoroughly, nothing could be elicited from him since he gave evasive answers retracting from his earlier version and intentionally had not furnished any relevant information. Therefore, in these circumstances, unless the petitioner is examined under custodial interrogation, no relevant information could be elicited from the petitioner. Hence, the respondent sought for cancellation of the bail. 8. Urging for grant of anticipatory bail, Mr. AR.L. Sunderasan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while exercising discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the matter of granting anticipatory bail, the Court has to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case and the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He argued that Section438 Cr.P.C. is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who has been charged with accusation and until and unless such accusation is proved beyond reasonable doubt, he must be presumed to be innocent and therefore, the power under Section 438 is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. He submitted that in the matter of granting bail, the Court has to consider the factors, viz., the nature and gravity of the accusations; the antecedents of the person, seeking bail, the possibility of the person to flee from justice and his likelihood to repeat similar or other offences, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, whether the accusation has been made with mala fide intention to tarnish image and to injure or humiliate the said person, etc., and according to the learned senior counsel, these factors are absolutely not existing in the present case and therefore, there would be no justifying reasons to deny the bail. 9. The learned senior counsel would submit that for the alleged offence took place during the period 2004-2007, the Investigating Agency had started preliminary enquiry only in the year 2011 and in the year 2013 only, they registered the FIR, i.e. on 23.07.2013 and during the course of investigation, as many as 60 witnesses were enquired and more than 200 documents were recovered and the petitioner was also summoned for the purpose of interrogation and the petitioner had also fully co-operated with the investigating agency by appearing before them. However, without completing the investigation and without filing the charge sheet, the respondent has been prolonging the proceedings only for the purpose that the petitioner should not get the liberty and to defeat the bail application. He also submitted that under the guise of interrogation, having summoned the co-accused, all of a sudden, the respondent effected arrest and likewise, the respondent issued summons by FAX on 29.6.2015, to appear on 1.7.2015 at CBI, Delhi, with an aim only to arrest the petitioner. Therefore, there would be every possibility of being arrested in the hands of the respondent, the petitioner is certainly entitled to the bail. He also pointed out that in order to comply with the condition imposed by this Court while grating interim anticipatory bail on 30.6.2015, the petitioner appeared before the respondent for three days, 1.7.2015 to 3.7.2015 in New Delhi for interrogation and he also sent SMS to the investigating agency whether he should personally be required to present documents as called for, for which, he was intimated reply by way of SMS that he need not to appear, but suffice if the documents were alone produced. The learned senior counsel submitted that accordingly, the petitioner by letter, 7.7.2015 has given all the details. Therefore, when the petitioner was fully co-operating with the enquiry, there would no likelihood of either absconding or flee from justice and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the bail. He pointed out that the respondent has filed the petition with baseless averments for cancellation of the bail application and for custody of the petitioner for interrogation, which deserves to be dismissed and what are all information they sought for, the petitioner had submitted and it is not true that he had retracted from his earlier version and gave evasive answers and the respondent, is nothing but expecting confession of the committal of the offence from the petitioner. He would contend that it is settled law that arrest should be last option and it should be restricted to those exception cases, like the present one, where arresting the petitioner is imperative in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the learned senior counsel sought for grant of anticipatory bail and he submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 10. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions, viz., i) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2011 SC 312 : (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under in para 111, 115 and 116: "111. No inflexible guidelines or strait-jacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour." "113. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour." "113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 115. In Joginder Kumar's case (supra), a three Judge Bench of this Court has referred to the 3rd report of the National Police Commission, in which it is mentioned that the quality of arrests by the Police in India mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief sources of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails. "116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case." ii) Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2013 (11) SCALE 374 : (2013) 15 SCC 570 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under in para 12 and 13: "12) While exercising power under Section 438of the Code, the Court is duty bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. The object of putting such conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint. 13) The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. Thus, any condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law. So, the discretion of the Court while imposing conditions must be exercised with utmost restraint. 13) The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." iii) Hazarilal Das v. State of West Bengal and Another MR., 2010 SC 91 : (2009) 10 SCC 652 : (2010) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 487, wherein, it has been held as under in 6 and 7: "6. Although the High Court did notice in the impugned order that the considerations which should be in the mind of the court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of cancellation of bail, yet we find that these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside. In Dolat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 , this Court held: "4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted." "7. There is nothing on record that there has been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. It also does not appear from the record that concession granted to him has been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances have surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. The judicial discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge in granting the anticipatory bail has been interfered with by the High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. We are, thus, satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained." iv) Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980) 2 SCC 565 , wherein, it has been held as under in para 16, 17, 21, 26 and 28: "16. A close look at some of the rules in the eight-point code formulated by he High Court will show how difficult it is to apply them in practice. The seventh proposition says "The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under Section 438 of the Code should not be exercised." "17. How can the Court, even if it had a third eye, assess the blatantness of corruption at the stage of anticipatory bail? And will it be correct to say that blatantness of the accusation will suffice for rejecting bail, even if the applicant's conduct is painted in colours too lurid to be true? The eighth proposition rule framed by the High Court says "Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. And will it be correct to say that blatantness of the accusation will suffice for rejecting bail, even if the applicant's conduct is painted in colours too lurid to be true? The eighth proposition rule framed by the High Court says "Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fide are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless." "Does this rule mean, and that is the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor-General, that the anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless it is alleged (and naturally, also shown, because mere allegation is never enough) that the proposed accusations are mala fide ? It is understandable that if mala fides are shown anticipatory bail should be granted in the generality of cases. But it is not easy to appreciate why an application for anticipatory bail must be rejected unless the accusation is shown to be mala fide. This, truly, is the risk involved in framing rules by judicial construction. Discretion, therefore, ought to be permitted to remain in the domain of discretion, to be exercised objectively and open to correction by the higher courts. The safety of discretionary power lies in this twin protection which provides a safeguard against its abuse." "21. ... Under Section 438, the applicant has undoubtedly to make out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. But one cannot go further and say that he must make out a 'special case'. A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use...." "22. Nor is one justified in reading the conclusion that the power under Section 438must be exercised in "exceptional cases only" merely because it is of an extraordinary character...." v) "Order, dated 15.6.2015 of this Court made in Crl. O.P. No. 5584 of 2015", wherein, this Court has held as under in para 10. "10. The dictum laid down in the above cases would clearly show that once anticipatory bail is granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Only if there is any abuse of concession granted to the accused, then only the court can cancel the anticipatory bail. "10. The dictum laid down in the above cases would clearly show that once anticipatory bail is granted, the same cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner. Only if there is any abuse of concession granted to the accused, then only the court can cancel the anticipatory bail. In the instant case, even according to the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is abusing the concession granted to him. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that the reasons assigned by the Court below for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent are factually incorrect. The said submission will not serve as a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent." vi) State v. Rajesh Gosain and Another, 2014 (2) JCC 1383, wherein, the High Court of Delhi has held as under in para 22: "22. As seen above, it is the case of respondent that FIR was registered on 19th August, 2011. On the very next day, i.e., 20th August, 2011, the police seized laptops, mobile phones, hard disks, CDs, DVDs from the residence and office of respondents. Considering the fact that seizure had already taken place, vide impugned order dated 26th February, 2013 anticipatory bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. At the same time, respondents were directed to join investigation. It is the case of the respondent that from 30th March, 2012 to 9th February, 2013, as many as 17 letters were sent by them to various police officials including Investigating Officer to join investigation. Even after grant of anticipatory bail as many as 15 letters were sent during the period 5th March, 2013 to 29th September, 2013 offering themselves for investigation. On four different occasions, they also filled the questionnaire as required by the Investigating Officer. It is not even disputed by the petitioner that the respondents are not joining investigation. It is only alleged that they are not cooperating in the investigation which fact is disputed by the respondent by submitting that besides filing the questionnaire given to them during investigation, they have also provided requisite information in respect of the bank account details of the company, namely, Spark Buying Services Pvt. Ltd. which shows that no transactions were made in this account. Hence no profit as alleged was made by the respondents. Hence no profit as alleged was made by the respondents. In the status report dated 20th June, 2013, it was alleged that custodial interrogation is required to recover the laptop from respondent No. 2 and to recover the data/information from respondent No. 1. As per the seizure memo dated 2nd August, 2013 Benq' laptop has already been seized by the Investigating Officer from respondent No. 2, which according to the prosecution, has been sent for analysis. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the fact that recovery has already been effected, respondents are not only joining investigation as and when required but are also volunteering themselves to join investigation by writing various letters to the Investigating Officer and senior police officials, the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. As held in Dolat Ram's case (supra), very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail already granted. Further in Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others., 2011 (1) SCC 694 , it was observed that where the accused has joined the investigation and is cooperating with the Investigating Agency and is not likely to abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided." 11. Opposing the petition for cancellation of interim anticipatory bail filed by the respondent/CBI, Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that only in order to tarnish the image of the petitioner in the society and due to political vendetta, a false and frivolous criminal case has been foisted against the petitioner with all outlandish allegations and without any substantial material to implicate the petitioner with the alleged offence that took place during 2004-2007, the CBI has been floundering in completing the investigation. He pointed out that the preliminary enquiry was conducted in the year 2011 and with a lapse of two years thereafter, on 23.07.2013, charge sheet was filed and during investigation, as many as 60 witnesses were enquired and more than 200 documents were collected, however, without filing the charge sheet, purposefully kept the case pending under the guise of investigation in order to deny the bail to the petitioner and citing the same, security clearance was refused by order, dated 15.7.2015 by the Ministry mentioning that there is a economic threat to the country and prevented the companies from participating in FM Radio auction though the petitioner was not nothing to do with the said companies and on very next day, i.e. on 16.7.2015, the present application for cancellation of interim bail has been filed. He pointed out that under the guise of interrogation, the co-accused were summons and all of sudden arrested them by the respondent and this Court granted the bail to them while refusing custodial interrogation. He submitted that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner had appeared before the respondent in January, 2014 and October, 2014 for interrogation and thereafter also, he appeared for three days, from 1.7.2015 to 3.3.2015 and provided all the information which respondent sought for was provided by him and sent detailed letters. 12. As regards the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the learned senior counsel would contend that ISDN BRI connection with DID facility is one and only connection and it cannot be treated as 300 telephone connections alleged by the respondent. He explained the facility of ISDN RPA, i.e. rapid primary rate access connection means that if a person has a telephone connection bearing No. 28271000, he can have 300 telephone numbers, viz., 28271000 to 28271300 with one Pilot No. 28271000 and if any of the number is busy, the call will go to next number, likewise, at a time, 300 lines will get connected if any of the consecutive numbers are busy, however, for these calls, only one bill is generated and this facility can be availed by anyone on payment of Rs. 1750/- per month and the meter reading shows the usage of calls. 1750/- per month and the meter reading shows the usage of calls. He submitted that a Member of Parliament is entitled to 1,50,000 free calls and for a Cabinet Minister, there were no specific rules or regulation restricting the usage of telephone calls and even assuming that there were 300 telephone connection, the usage of calls was not certainly exceeded more than the free calls. He referred to the Circular, dated 12.2.2013 issued by the Government of India with regard to providing 'Service connection' to the Ministers and it would be provided in accordance to the demand raised by them and the bills thereof shows usage of calls, however, no amount is billed for the same. He submitted this facility had been availed by all the Secretaries and staff of DoT and also former Ministers, however, it was treated differently as far as the petitioner was concerned. He submitted that NIC, a wing of Ministry of Communication and IT provided video conferencing facility from the camp office of the petitioner at Chennai to DoT by utilizing BSNL and MTNL, ISDN BRI telephone lines with point to point leased lines and it is highly impossible to divert for the use by SUN TV net work and the allegation that the huge data was transferred including voice, video and audio through the telephone connections installed at the residence of the petitioner to SUN TV is baseless and in this regard, the respondent has not produced any relevant documentary material. Likewise, he submitted that he never obtained 10 post paid mobile connections or prepaid connections under "service category" for the use by SUN TV and the allegations made thereof is also baseless and no material is produced by the respondent. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that there is absolutely no prima facie is made out by the respondent in respect of the allegations made in FIR in order to either deny the anticipatory bail nor for cancellation of bail. 13. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that there is absolutely no prima facie is made out by the respondent in respect of the allegations made in FIR in order to either deny the anticipatory bail nor for cancellation of bail. 13. He has further submitted that while entertaining the application for cancellation of bail, the Court must find whether the petitioner/accused had misused the liberty granted to him by way of interim anticipatory bail, such as attempting to tamper with evidence, trying to abscond with an intention not available for trial, etc., and he reiterated that the petitioner was very much co-operating with the investigation subjecting himself to the interrogation by appearing in person in New Delhi on 1.7.2015 to 3.7.2015 and nowhere the respondent raised contention that the petitioner had attempted to tamper with the evidence and hence, no grounds are made out by the respondent for cancellation of the bail. He has further submitted that though the petitioner was very much available for interrogation on the above said dates, the respondent has only sought for production of documents and now came up with new theory that as if the petitioner had given evasive answers and not co-operating with them and hence custodial interrogation is required, which is absolutely not required in the present factual situation. The learned senior counsel contended that no ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out to implicate the petitioner with the crime and if at all any loss caused muchless Rs. 1.20 crores to the BSNL as alleged by the respondent, it is a purely civil dispute and the respondent ought to have filed suit for recovery of the said loss. With these contentions, the learned senior counsel sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent for cancellation of the bail. 14. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following decisions, viz., i) In the case of Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, ACRR-1995-0-133 : (1994) 5 SCC 709 , the Apex Court has observed that "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 15. Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, while urging for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 30.6.2015 in favour of the petitioner, would vehemently contend that present one is a case of sophisticated crime involving huge loss caused to the exchequer of Government of India, committed by the petitioner along with co-accused, by abusing his official position as a Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology (MoCIT) at the material time. He submitted that the investigation revealed that during the period 2004-07, the petitioner got various telephone connection facilities, such as, ISDN, BRA, PRA, Broad Band, Leased line circuits, etc., by influencing the co-accused, who were the then Chief General Manager under his control and made the same to the exclusive usage by SUN TV. He pointed out that as per the Housing and Telephone Facilities (Members of Parliament) Rules, 1956, an M.P., is entitled to 3 telephone connections, 1 for his constituency, 1 for Delhi residence and one for Broad Band connection and two mobile connections and 1,50,000 calls per annum and apart from this, any other connection if taken, should be in the name of the individual and bill will be raised in his name. However, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Officials of BSNL, illegally obtained 364 actual telephone lines with high end connections having 2PRA, 7 BRAs, 04 Leased line circuits and 02 broadband connections at his Gopalapuram residence under "service category" without his entitlement. However, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Officials of BSNL, illegally obtained 364 actual telephone lines with high end connections having 2PRA, 7 BRAs, 04 Leased line circuits and 02 broadband connections at his Gopalapuram residence under "service category" without his entitlement. He contended that in order to make the bills with "0" payment, the petitioner got these connections in the name of Chief General Manager, BSNL Telephones under 'service category' and further, he obtained 19 pre-paid Mobile SIM cards including 10 vanity numbers and made them for usage by SUN TV and for all these connections, no bills were raised and no payments were made and thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the exchequer of Government. He also submitted that during the month of December, 2006, the petitioner shifted his residence from Gopalapuram to Boat Club Road, Chennai and for this residence also, another 353 high end connections illegally under 'service category' without disconnecting the previous connections provided to his vacated house at Gopalapuram. The learned Addl. Solicitor General would contend that the investigation also revealed that SUN TV had purchased many EPABX and other telecommunication equipments, out of which, two exchanges were installed in his residences at Gopalapuram, Chennai and at Akbar Road, Delhi which were configured/interfaced with the main exchange installed at the SUN HO, Anna Arivalaya, Chennai and the facilities provided by BSNL/MTNL were used by the exchange of SUN Head Office. He pointed out that by way of these illegal connections, the petitioner had caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 1.20 crores to the Government exchequer. He would draw the attention of this Court to the judicial conscience to apply while exercising discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. He pointed out that when number of accused persons have been languishing in jails even for committal petty offences, then, why the petitioner should be extended special concession by enlarging him on bail when as against him, serious allegations of corruption, cheating and causing wrongful loss to the exchequer of the Government to the tune of crores of rupees, have been attributed. Therefore, with these contentions, the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, sought for cancellation of the bail. In support of his contentions, the learned Addl. Therefore, with these contentions, the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, sought for cancellation of the bail. In support of his contentions, the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, relied upon the following decisions, viz., i) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Burea of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under in para 34 and 35: "34. Economic offences constitute a class part and need to be visited with a different approach in the manner of bail. The economic offences having deep - rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed and considered as grave offence affecting the economy of the country as whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of country. 35. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public/states and other similar considerations." ii) Dukhisyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, AIR 1998 SC 696 : (1998) 1 SCC 52 : (1998) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 246, wherein, it has been held as under in para 7 to 9: "7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench, Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual (vide State rep by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7651). 8. This court has pointed out time and again that considerations to be weighed with the court while dealing with a prayer for pre-arrest bail order are materially different from a post-arrest bail application, vide Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others., AIR (1985) SC 969, State rep by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, JT (1997) 7 651 and The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Another, JT (1997) 8 382. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that he made himself available for interrogation for several days after being armed with an order preventing his arrest is not much relevance now because that is not an aspect which can be taken advantage of by the respondent in this case. Similarly the contention that respondent is a sick person is not enough to claim pre-arrest bait order. Hence we are not inclined to go into the dispute whether respondent is suffering from any such health condition." iii) Adridharvan Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057 : (2005) 4 SCC 303 , wherein, para 7 and 19 are relevant, which are extracted as under: "7. ... The power exercisable under Section 438is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised under Section 438. The power being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums, i.e. the Court of Session or the High Court...." "19. The power being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums, i.e. the Court of Session or the High Court...." "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code." iv) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 , wherein, it has been held as under: "34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. "35. We have highlighted the above aspects to show that the High Court has mistakenly taken into account the irrelevant materials and kept out the relevant materials, which had to be considered for the grant of bail." v) State, rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 : (1997) 7 SCC 187 : (1998) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 95, wherein, it has been held as under in para 6: "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 16. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent/CBI and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 17. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 16. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent/CBI and carefully perused the entire materials available on record. 17. The petitioner/accused No. 1, has been accused of committing serious offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 409 IPC, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that while he was a Union Minister, during the period 2004-2007, by abusing his official position and in collusion with the officials of BSNL, Chennai, viz., A2 and A3 and other unknown officials and in furtherance of conspiracy with dishonest intention, got installed more than 300 telephone connections with ISDN-PRA and ISDN-BRA, Lease Circuit facilities, 19 post paid mobile connections etc., in his residence in the name of the accused Government servants to show these connections illegally under 'service category', thereby no payment was made for the installation and rentals. Further, by not generating any users bill during the said period, misappropriated huge amount which was to be paid to the Government, thereby caused huge wrongful loss to the Government, to the tune of Rs. 1,20,87,769/- and the corresponding gain to himself and others. 18. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, who elaborately argued on the subject matter pertaining to the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences and contended that absolutely no case was made out to implicate the petitioner for the alleged offences and explained in detail regarding the telephone technology, viz., ISDN (integrated Service Digital Network), BRA (Basic Rate Access), PRA (Primary Rate Access), Broad Band connection, Leased line Circuits, and telephone connections under Service Category obtained by the petitioner, entitlement of having connections and calls being Minister, no possibility of such telephone connections for being used by SUN TV Network by installing mini telephone exchange, etc., by at the outset, I am of the considered view that these arguments and contentions are best and very helpful at the time of trial of the case and no way helpful in deciding the issue of involved in these petitions either for cancellation or granting the anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 19. 19. However, the rulings cited by the learned senior counsels for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the CBI, gave a broad thought on exhaustive guidelines to this Court as to how the bail petition and cancellation of bail petition have to be considered. The above referred to decisions deduces elaborate principles in the matter of consideration of bail petition on the merits depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly in serious offences, the Court should take utmost care considering the impact of the offence on the exchequer and thereafter, considering the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the accused, the bail either can be granted or refused. Even at the initial stages, if the bail is granted without considering the above said principles, that can be cancelled by the court again depending upon the supervening circumstances and other considerations prevailing at the time of canceling the bail. Therefore, there is no hard and fast rule or a straight jacket formula set out in any of the rulings cited supra in the matter of granting the bail. However, it is the sound discretion of the Court by applying its judicious mind either can grant or cancel the bail already granted. 20. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering its earlier judgments, laid down certain factors and parameters to be considered while considering the an application for anticipatory bail, in para 112 and 113, as under: "112. 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. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. 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 149of 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. "113. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record." 21. In this background, bearing in mind the above said sound guide lines, let me consider the factual matrix of the case, allegations made against the petitioner/accused persons and the prima facie case made against him, either for granting or cancelling the bail. 22. At the risk of repetition, it is proper for this Court to mention the prosecution as under: 23. The petitioner was a Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology during the period June, 2004 to June 2007. 22. At the risk of repetition, it is proper for this Court to mention the prosecution as under: 23. The petitioner was a Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology during the period June, 2004 to June 2007. While functioning as such, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with other officials of BSNL, Chennai and by abusing their official positions, caused huge financial loss to the Government exchequer. The officials, in violation of rules and regulations, facilitated/provided a number of high end telecommunication facilities, i.e. ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network), BRA (Basic Rate Access), PRA (Primary Rate Access), Broad Band Connections and leased line circuits, etc., at the residence of the petitioner and these facilities were treated under 'Service Category' and no bills were raised for the same during the period 2004-07 and thereby huge wrongful loss was caused to the Government of India. As per BSNL Circular dated 12.10.2006, Executives and non-executives are entitled for residential service telephone connections and there is no provision for providing telephone connection to any Minister under Service Category without the approval of the concerned ministry, i.e. Department of Telecommunications. However, the petitioner had illegally obtained 364 actual telephone numbers consisting high end connections having 2 PRA, 7 BRAs, 04 leased line circuits and 02 broadband connections at his Gopalapuram residence at Chennai under Service Category without his entitlement and no bills were raised and no payments were made to BSNL, Chennai towards these connections. In order to bring these connections under Service category, the hirer/billing address was provided as the Office of the GM, BSNL, Chennai Telephones. The petitioner had also obtained 19 prepaid mobile SIM cards under service category illegally, without his entitlement from BSNL, Chennai and these SIM cars were used by the staff of SUN TV without payments of due charges to BSNL. During the month of December, 2006, the petitioner shifted his residence from Gopalapuram to Boat Club Road, Chennai and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, another 353 high end connections were again obtained by the petitioner illegally under 'service category' without getting the previous connections disconnected. Both the houses of the petitioner at Gopalapuram and Boat Club were provided optical fibre cable connectivity (OFC) illegally and the NIC, New Delhi purchased and installed several video conferencing equipments at Chennai and Delhi residences illegally. Both the houses of the petitioner at Gopalapuram and Boat Club were provided optical fibre cable connectivity (OFC) illegally and the NIC, New Delhi purchased and installed several video conferencing equipments at Chennai and Delhi residences illegally. The petitioner had also obtained 13 connections at his New Delhi residence from MTNL, New Delhi including ISDN connections under service category, besides 8+8 MBPs leased line circuit was also obtained illegally under service category without entitlement and MTNL, New Delhi never took the approval of DOT for the ISDN and leased line circuits, which clearly established that the ISDN connections and the leased line circuits cannot be provided to anybody, including the minister under service category. These services are immensely required and helpful in running the day to day affairs of a TV channel and these lines were used for the benefit of SUN TV. SUN TV had purchased many EPBAX and other telecommunication equipments amounting to Rs. 50 lacs from a Bangalore based firm, out of which, two exchanges were installed at Gopalapuram, Chennai and Akbar Road, Delhi residences of the petitioner. All the exchanges were so configured/interfaced with the main exchange installed at the then SUN HO, Anna Arivalaya, Chennai that the facilities provided by BSNL/MTNL could have been easily used by the exchange at SUN Head office and the above said illegal telephone connections were used to the benefit of SUN TV and the petitioner and other accused were running private mini-exchanges from their houses illegally. However, the petitioner in conspiracy with the then CGM, BSNL, Chennai got prepared a false and ante-dated reply wherein, it was projected that he had only one connection. During investigation, an estimated loss amounting to Rs. 1,78,71,391 was arrived at towards the wrongful loss caused to the Government exchequer and corresponding to the accused persons. 24. However, the petitioner in conspiracy with the then CGM, BSNL, Chennai got prepared a false and ante-dated reply wherein, it was projected that he had only one connection. During investigation, an estimated loss amounting to Rs. 1,78,71,391 was arrived at towards the wrongful loss caused to the Government exchequer and corresponding to the accused persons. 24. A careful examination of the material available against the petitioner/accused, I find the following crucial and important factors, of which some are undisputed, viz., i) That at the time of material time, i.e. during 2004-2007, the petitioner was a Union Minister for Communications & Information Technology (MoCIT) and he is the highest authority in regard to the official and departmental matters relating to the Telecommunications and Information Technology; ii) That ISDN PRI Line with indicator 28119797 was installed at the residence of the petitioner at No. 12, 2nd Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-086 as desired by him on 20.11.2004 and the said PRI Line was changed into DID group, the group ranging from 28122100 to 28122399 with the indication 28122222 as the pilot number and apart from this, 28122400, 28122424, 28122444, 28122525, 28122555, 28122727 and 28122728; (according to the petitioner as could be seen from his letter, dated 7.11.2014, ISDN PRI connection is treated as one telephone connection only and not as alleged 323 telephone connection, whereas, according to the prosecution, the petitioner had illegally obtained without his entitlement 364 actual telephone numbers/lines consisting high end connections having 2 PRA, 7 BRAs, 04 leased line circuits and 02 broadband connections at his Gopalapuram residence, Chennai under Service category); iii) That the co-accused, Thiru K. Brahmadathan and the Thiru M.P. Velusamy, were acting as Chief General Manager, under whose name, the bills were raised, showing bill payment at "0" towards the usage of calls since the telephones connections obtained for the residences of the petitioner at Gopalapuram, Boat-club and at Akbar Road, Delhi in the name of Chief General Managers, i.e. accused A2 and A3 under 'Service Category" iv) That as per BSNL Circular, dated 12.10.2006, only Executives and non-executives of the Department alone are provided telephone connections under "Service Category", by which, bill amount would always "0" and there is no provision or Circular providing such facility, i.e. 'Service category' to the Ministers and no material was placed even on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate that he is entitled to have telephone connections "Service category"; v) That NIC, a wing of Ministry of Communication and Information Technology provided video conferencing facility to him by using BSNL and MTNL ISDN BRI telephone lines along with point-to-point leased lines; (according to the petitioner as could be seen from his letter, dated 20.4.2015 addressed to the respondent, it was provided for official purpose, whereas, the prosecution alleged that SUN TV purchased EPABX and other telecommunications equipments, out of which, two exchanges were installed in the residence of the petitioner at Gopalapuram, Chennai and Delhi and the said exchanges were so configured/interfaced with the main exchanged installed at the SUN HO, Anna Arivalaya, Chennai with the facilities provided by BSNL/MTNL); vi) That SUN TV Network, a company owned by none other than the petitioner's own elder brother Thiru Dayanidhi Maran; 25. Of-course, it is true that unless the allegations leveled against the petitioner are proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution by way of both oral and documentary evidence, the accusations attributed against the petitioner cannot be considered as having been committed by him and therefore, unless he is found guilt of the offence, he should be considered as innocent and he is certainly entitled to the bail. 26. However, while considering the bail application of the petitioner in the light of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that the petitioner has been involved in serious offences, wherein allegations of corruption, cheating and causing wrongful loss to the exchequer of the Government to the tune of crores of rupees, have been attributed; it is learnt from media that the accusations were also made against petitioner in Aircel-Maxis deal and Tata-Rupert Murdoch DTH project. It is vehemently contended that due to political vendetta, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the accusations have been made with the object of injuring and humiliating the petitioner by arresting him. This contention, in my opinion, is not reasonable and acceptable one. Admittedly, the preliminary enquiry was started in the year 2011 and FIR was lodged in the year 2013 and till 13.6.2015, the respondent has not made any attempts to arrest the petitioner though there was no protection of bail and he was very much available in their presence in January and October 2014. Therefore, if really, the respondent had made accusations with the object of injuring or humiliating the petitioner, the petitioner would have been arrested by now. After evaluating the entire available material against the petitioner, I find prima facie the exact role of the petitioner being the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology in misusing his office for his wrongful gain by obtaining telephone connections illegally in the name of BSNL officials under "service category" and as such, I do not find any frivolity in the prosecution and the allegations which were attributed to the petitioner are corroborated by the material and circumstances on record. 27. Therefore, taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case, I am of the considered view that it is not appropriate to entertain the application of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 28. 27. Therefore, taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case, I am of the considered view that it is not appropriate to entertain the application of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. 28. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, when number of under-trials have been languishing in jails even for committal petty offences, then, why the petitioner should be extended special concession by enlarging him on bail when as against him, serious allegations of corruption, cheating and causing wrongful loss to the exchequer of the Government to the tune of crores of rupees, have been attributed. While exercising discretionary power vested with this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which of course, differ from Judge to Judge who deals with the issue of granting the relief, considering the gravity of the accusations attributed to the petitioner who was elected as a representative of the people and designated as a Union Minister, that he caused huge financial loss to the exchequer of the Government of India by misusing his official position, my judicial conscience prevented me to enlarge petitioner on bail. 29. In this regard, I feel it appropriate to extract the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetri v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra), as under: "1. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty." "89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular 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. "90. 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." ......... "96. It is a settled legal position that the court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at the instance of the accused, the public prosecutor or the complainant on finding new material or circumstances at any point of time. "97. The intention of the legislature is quite clear that the power of grant or refusal of bail is entirely discretionary. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) has clearly stated that grant and refusal is discretionary and it should depend on the facts and circumstances of each case...." 30. Just as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Further, according to the respondent/CBI, the petitioner, who has been granted anticipatory bail subject to the condition that he should co-operate with the enquiry, however, when he was examined, he was not cooperating, but retracted from his earlier version and giving many evasive answers to the questions and the information provided by him did not match with the statement given by him during his examination. Therefore, there would be reasonable apprehension of tampering the evidence and in such circumstances, as rightly prayed for by the Addl. Solicitor General of India, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State, rep. by the State, rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma (supra), wherein, it has been held as under in para 6: "6. Solicitor General of India, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State, rep. by the State, rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma (supra), wherein, it has been held as under in para 6: "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." In the light of the above discussion, the interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court, dated 13.6.2015 is hereby cancelled and consequently, the Crl. O.P. No. 18493 of 2015 filed by the respondent/CBI is allowed and the Crl. O.P. No. 16152 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, is dismissed. After pronouncing the orders today, i.e. 10.08.2015 dismissing the application in Crl. O.P. No. 16152 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, while allowing the application in Crl. O.P. No. 18493 of 2015 filed by the respondent/CBI for cancellation of interim bail, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner have prayed this Court to grant three days time to the petitioner to surrender himself. Considering the prayer now made by the learned senior counsel, the petitioner is granted three days time, i.e. on or before 13.08.2015 at 4.30 p.m., to surrender himself before the concerned authority. Petition Dismissed.