JUDGMENT 1. The petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.5 in Cr.No.122 of 2015 on the file of P.S. CCS, Team-I, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of IPC. 2. The brief facts are as under:- Pasumarthy Venu Madha is a non-resident Indian. He started M/s.Material Software System India (P) Limited and M/s. Material Soft Information Technologies, for software development, and both were situated in Hyderabad. The non-petitioner/K.Shanthan Kumar was the Administration & Finance In-charge and he was made responsible to oversee the entire operations of the two companies and report the developments to Venu Madha. Necessary documents were executed by Venu Madhav authorizing the non-petitioner/A.1 to operate the two bank accounts of the companies viz., Karnataka Bank at Dilsukhnagar and Vijaya Bank at Basheerbagh. A.2 is the wife of A.1, A.3 is the brother of A.2, A.4 is the brother-in-law of Venu Madhav and said to be a resident of USA, and A.5 is the Auditor and Chartered Accountant for the two establishments. On 20-05-2015 Venu Madhav filed complaint alleging that the non-petitioner/A.1 has indulged in several acts of omission and commission and embezzlement and caused huge loss to the complainant to a tune of about Rs.40 crores. It is the case of the complainant that he has invested about Rs.20 crores in the business and more than Rs.8 crores were drawn by A.1 from different banks by mortgaging the properties of the complainant. Approximately Rs.2.50 crores were received by the Company from the customers. In the complaint, the detailed narration of events about the investment and the expenditure and amount alleged to have been fraudulently misappropriated are mentioned. The purport thereof is that by making incorrect payments and drawing huge amounts in the names of himself and his relations by manipulating the accounts, fraud is perpetrated by A.1. 3. Since the present petition is by A.5, what is required to be seen is as to what is the specific allegation against him in the comprehensive complaint filed by the complainant. 4. After detailed analysis of the acts of the non-petitioner/A.1, the specific allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is that A.5 was appointed by A.1 as Auditor and A.5 was part of the conspiracy for defrauding the complainant by manipulating the accounts. 4. After detailed analysis of the acts of the non-petitioner/A.1, the specific allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is that A.5 was appointed by A.1 as Auditor and A.5 was part of the conspiracy for defrauding the complainant by manipulating the accounts. The Chartered Accountant facilitated A.1 in falsifying the Company records unsupported by the documents and diverting funds in the account of A.1’s wife. It is further alleged that the Company Auditor (A.5) did not divulge the detailed accounts despite repeated requests from his side.5. The contention of the petitioner/A.5 is that he is a freelance and a certified Chartered Accountant rendering services to various companies. He is not the employee of the Company of the complainant. His services were hired by the Company. The petitioner/A.5 was receiving vouchers of receipts and payments and accordingly he used to file the returns based on the data furnished by the authorized person of the Company, that he was acting in accordance with law with a bona fide impression that all the receipts placed before him were properly accounted for and he used to file income tax returns and other returns which were being accepted. The petitioner/A.5 is in no way concerned with the internal affairs of the Company except for auditing the accounts and submitting statutory returns. It is further contended that the petitioner/A.5 is a reputed Chartered Accountant having fixed abode and therefore he may be granted the pre-arrest bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that it is a case where huge amounts were defrauded by A.1 and others and A.5 being a Chartered Accountant has facilitated falsification of the accounts, thereby causing loss to the complainant. 7. The de facto complainant with the leave of the Court has submitted his arguments contending that it is no doubt true that the entire operations of the Company were in the hands of the non-petitioner/A.1 and it is he WHO has siphoned of huge amounts but the petitioner being a Chartered Accountant was responsible for auditing the accounts properly and he has colluded and conspired with the non-petitioner/A.1 in nefarious activities of A.1, which ultimately resulted in huge loss to the complainant. The role of the Chartered Accountant/A.5 cannot be said to be only that of checking the accounts but he is very much involved in the dealings of the Company and hence, granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.5 at this stage will adversely affect the investigation. It is further submitted that if really the petitioner/A.5 is as innocent as he contends, nothing prevents him from appearing before the Investigating Officer and placing all the records. 8. The admitted fact is that the petitioner/A.5 is retained by the Company owned by the complainant for the purposes of auditing the accounts and filing the returns. The complainant filed a detailed complaint setting out several acts of omission and commission on the part of A.1. The only allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is that he being a Chartered Accountant and Auditor has colluded with A.1 in his illegal activities. It is also alleged that the Chartered Accountant was not furnishing the accounts when the complainant demanded. 9. Prima facie a reading of the complaint shows that the petitioner/A.5 cannot be said to be a person who is deeply involved in the day-to-day affairs and transactions of the Company. It is his contention that based on the vouchers, receipts and other documents furnished by the authorized person, he used to prepare the income tax and other returns and submit the same with the authorities which were being accepted. The petitioner/A.5 has also produced several documents to show that the income tax returns that were being submitted by him were being accepted by the authorities and the petitioner/A.5 also produced certain E-Mail correspondence, which he had with the de facto complainant furnishing the requisite information to him. Specifically, the petitioner/A.5 has produced the correspondence of February, 2015 (the present complaint is filed in May, 2015). In the communication, dated February 11, 2015, the Chartered Accountant has furnished the detailed accounts to the complainant. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioner/Chartered Accountant/A.5 was not furnishing the requisite information to the de facto complainant being the Director of the Companies. 10. Learned Counsel on either side have cited certain authorities, which, no doubt, laid down the proposition of law insofar as the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is concerned. The facts in the cited case are quite distinct and they cannot be said to be relevant insofar as the present allegations are concerned. 10. Learned Counsel on either side have cited certain authorities, which, no doubt, laid down the proposition of law insofar as the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail is concerned. The facts in the cited case are quite distinct and they cannot be said to be relevant insofar as the present allegations are concerned. Suffice it to say that the following factors and parameters have to be taken into consideration while dealing with the application for anticipatory bail, as has been laid down by the Apex Court in SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASTRA (AIR 2011 S.C., 312):- “122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. 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. 123. 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. 124. 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.” 11. Even at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the complainant in his comprehensive complaint has referred to several activities of the persons involved in day-to-day affairs of the Company, more particularly, the non-petitioner/A.1. Almost all the allegations are directed only against him. The only insinuation made against the petitioner/A.5 is with his connivance, A.1 was manipulating the accounts, drawing huge amounts and misappropriating the same. If the authorized person of a Company produces the Account Books and also the vouchers, bills and receipts which vouch-safe the day-to-day affairs of the Company, the Chartered Accountant or Auditor cannot question the authorised person for having made any improper payments. He cannot question the person-in-charge as to why huge salaries are being paid. A Chartered Accountant is not expected to dabble in the day-to-day affairs of the Company whether it be in the matter of the transactions or sale and purchase of the properties for and on behalf of the Company. The primary job of a Chartered Accountant/Auditor is to satisfy that each rupee that is spent by a Company or received by a company is properly accounted for and reflected in the accounts. 12. The primary job of a Chartered Accountant/Auditor is to satisfy that each rupee that is spent by a Company or received by a company is properly accounted for and reflected in the accounts. 12. In the case in hand, as already stated, the allegation against the petitioner/A.5 is that he being the Auditor and Chartered Accountant has facilitated A.1 in manipulating the accounts and not furnishing the information to the complainant when demanded. 13. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations, the status of the Chartered Accountant, his duties and responsibilities towards the Company and the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A.5 will be required. However, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner/A.5 shall make himself available and furnish all the detailed information for effective and smooth investigation into the crime. Subject to certain directions, therefore, the petitioner/A.5 is entitled to the relief. It is needless to say that the observations, touching upon the merits of the case, made in the above order are only for the purpose of deciding the present application, which shall not, in any way, influence any other proceedings. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and petitioner/A.5 is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner/A.5 shall surrender himself before the jurisdictional Court within a period of thirty days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) together with two sureties in a like sum; ii) The petitioner/A.5 shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court; iii) The petitioner/A.5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon and furnish the information sought for and shall extend cooperation for smooth investigation of the crime; and iv) The petitioner/A.5 shall not interfere with the investigation, induce or intimidate the witnesses.