JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.:- 1. This petition has been filed under Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006, and Sections 120-B, 466, 468 and 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code, registered under FIR No. 30/2014, with the Vigilance Organisation, Jammu. The allegations against the petitioner are that he, in connivance with others, by abusing his official position, granted illegal and undue benefit to undeserving candidates and selected them for Class TV posts. It is stated that the petitioner as a part of the selection Committee had selected approximately 90 candidates against the aforementioned posts in the Education department out of which at least 15 candidates had not at all filed their application forms before the Zonal Education Officer concerned, as per the advertisement notice. These selections thus, are stated to be back-door appointments. 2. Apart from this, in regard to 13 selected candidates, it is alleged that the marks were fraudulently raised with a view to confer undue benefit on them. It is further alleged that at least, six candidates were either given less marks by the Interview Committee or were shown as absent but subsequently, their points were fraudulently raised which led to their selection. Besides this, it has been alleged that the petitioner had violated the relevant Government orders fixing the criteria according to which, the selection was to be made and marks allocated for, viva there-under. 3. It is stated that a similar application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 497-A of the Cr.P.C., was preferred by the petitioner which came to be rejected by the learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Jammu, vide his order dt. 10.12.2014. The reason for rejection of the application by the court below was that the petitioner had failed to project the compelling circumstances for grant of such a concession in his favour, Besides this, the court below observed that there was a likelihood of the petitioner's tampering in the process of investigation directly or indirectly. 4. Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was sought to be implicated falsely in the aforementioned case on account of political vendetta. 4. Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was sought to be implicated falsely in the aforementioned case on account of political vendetta. It was urged that there were four members in the select Committee, which included Principal DIET; District Social Welfare Officer; Assistant Director Employment, besides the petitioner in his capacity as a Chief Education Officer. It was further urged that the other members of the Committee were not being questioned by the investigating officer. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further urged that the petitioner could not be held responsible in case, the dealing assistant entrusted with the job of receipt of application forms had accepted the forms beyond time or had incorporated the names of such candidates in the list eligible for sitting in the interview without disclosing the fact that such candidates had never submitted their application forms. It was stated that the allegations regarding fraud and forgery to the extent of increasing the marks in favour of some of the candidates were also baseless in as much as there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had been responsible for such a fraud or forgery. 6. It was urged that had it been a case of forgery attributable to the petitioner, nothing would have prevented the Investigating agency to compare the forged documents along with the specimen hand-writing of the petitioner by a forensic examination. It was stated that even when the petitioner had been all-along associating with the investigating officer to unravel the truth, nothing had been placed before the court in that regard, which could even remotely connect the petitioner to the allegations in the FIR. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further stated that refusal to grant the benefit of bail would lead to humiliation and bring not only the petitioner but also his family to ridicule for an offence which ultimately would not stand the test of trial in a court of law. He stated that the petitioner was al-along cooperating with the investigating agency and that his arrest and custodial interrogation was not, at all, necessary in these circumstances and that being firmly rooted in the society and holding a high position in the Education department, the petitioner would certainly not flee from justice and would stand trial, if ultimately charged in a court of law. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.S. Salathia, appearing for the petitioner argued extensively by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Apex, Court in the case reported as Siddhararn Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , highlighting the fact that the courts al-along had emphasized the importance and the need to protect and preserve the personal liberty of a person who is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court. 9. It was urged that since the petitioner was attending the office of the Investigating Officer as and when required, there was no need to arrest the petitioner. It was also urged that the requisite records had since been seized thus, obviating the necessity of custodial interrogation. 10. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by stating that since the allegations against the petitioner were serious, any such concession of bail in favour of the petitioner would impede the course of investigation and prevent unraveling of truth by identifying those who might be involved in the aforementioned conspiracy to confer undue benefit on the beneficiaries. 11. It was urged that the consistent view taken by the courts in cases pertaining to corruption at high places was against granting of anticipation bail unless compelling circumstances are made out in favour of such accused person. Reference in this regard was made to a judgment of this court in the case of Ajit Kumar v. State of J & K, Bail Application No. 65/2004, decided on 22.9.2004 : 2004 (3) JKJ 247 [HC]. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diaries. 13. The scope of powers exercisable by the courts while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail has been dealt with at length by the Apex Court in Siddharam's case supra wherein it has been held that it was not possible to provide for rigid and inflexible guidelines in regard to the circumstances and situations for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, which necessarily would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While placing reliance on an earlier judgment by a Constitution Bench in the case reported as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , it held that the High Court or the Court or Session should exercise their jurisdiction by a wise and careful use of their discretion and wine doing so, prescribed certain factors and parameters which could be taken into consideration while dealing with such anticipatory bails. What washed by the Apex Court in paragraph 112 of the judgment supra, is being reproduced below:- "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 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." 14. Testing the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be seen that the allegations pertain to a process of recruitment for which approximately 12000 candidates had responded as against 90 Class IV vacancies, in the Education department. A selection Committee comprising four members was constituted consisting of Principal DIET; District Social Welfare Officer; Assistant Director Employment besides the petitioner who was the Chief Education Officer and the Chairman of the Selection Committee was entrusted the job of selection. 15. The investigation conducted does suggest that certain candidates who had never applied came to be selected. Further the investigation reflects that in some cases, the marks allowed by other members of the Committee were fraudulently and systematically altered to convert demerit into merit. The course of investigation, as highlighted by the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Basotra, points to the involvement of the petitioner, which certainly requires investigation. The petitioner cannot shake off responsibility especially when he was acting as the Chairman of the Committee and the entire process was conducted either by him or his subordinates in the Education department while the other members were co-opted from other departments. 16. It was urged by Mr. Basotra, that while the petitioner does appear before the Investigating Officer but either expresses ignorance regarding any wrong doing in the process of selection or attributes the same to the subordinate staff. This shows that mere appearance before the investigating officer would certainly not help if the petitioner were to maintain silence or evade the questions posed at such an investigation which would render it illusory. This shows that mere appearance before the investigating officer would certainly not help if the petitioner were to maintain silence or evade the questions posed at such an investigation which would render it illusory. Such a situation would certainly not justify the exercise of discretionary powers vested in this court under Section 497-A of the Cr.P.C., as applicable in the State of J & K. 17. While the courts have emphasized the need to ensure that no unjustified harassment, humiliation is caused due to the unjustified detention of an accused yet, a fine balance has to be maintained to ensure that no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation in the matter. In fact, in cases like the one at hand, courts have taken a view against grant of any such concession in the nature of an anticipatory bail. 18. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Anr., AIR 1997 SC 3589 , the Apex court, while setting aside the order of grant of anticipatory bail allowed by the High court in a case which involved leakage of question papers, held as under:- "We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondent. It is disquieting that implications of arming respondent, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned single judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if respondents are equipped with such an order before they are' interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impeded the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on "the career of millions of students", learned single judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the sessions judges and the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order. In the result, we allow these appeals and quash the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh granting anticipatory bail to the respondents in this case." 19. The material placed on record does not support the case of the petitioner that he is being falsely implicated in this case only on account of political vendetta. Equally untenable is the plea that the petitioner was entitled to concession of bail on account of the fact that the entire records have been seized. 20. In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., 2005 (4) SCC 303 , the Apex court held that ordinarily the courts will not interfere in the investigation of a crime or with arrest of an accused in a cognizable offence. It held that arrest was a part of process of investigation which enables the unraveling of the various facets crime including the motive, preparation and its commission. Arrest also leads to information leading to discovery of material facts. 21. This court in Mohd. Ramzan Bhat v. State of J & K, 2006 (1) SLJ 322 : 2005 (4) JKJ 604 [HC], held that anticipatory bail was a provision meant only to protect those who genuinely apprehend false involvement in criminal cases at the hands of influential adversaries or unscrupulous elements and not for those involving corruption, frauds on public exchequer and violation of public trust. 22. During the course of argument Mr. Basotra, learned Sr. AAG, urged that the petitioner continues to be the Chief Education Officer in the same officer along with the other staff some of whom may have actively participated in the commission of the offence with the petitioner. If that be so and if the petitioner were to be further armed with an order of anticipatory bail, the fate of the investigation would be a foregone conclusion. Since the present controversy affects a large number of people, it would be in public interest that the investigating agency gets a free hand to investigate the matter thoroughly. Exercising this discretion in favour of the petitioner, in my opinion, would Seriously prejudice the proper investigation in the matter as was held by the Apex Court in State Rep. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 , that custodial interrogation was more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. by CBI v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 , that custodial interrogation was more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused who is well ensconced with a favourable order Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. For the reasons mentioned above, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected and, accordingly, the petition being without merit is dismissed. The case diary be returned to Mr. Basotra, Sr. AAG.