JUDGMENT : 1. Shri C. L. Yadav, learned senior counsel with Shri S. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Kushal Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI. This is first bail application filed by the applicants under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The present applicants apprehend their arrest by Police Station C.B.I., New Delhi, in connection with Crime No. R.C.B.D-1/15-E-0003 for offence punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 409 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 3. The relevant facts are that one Jagmohan filed a complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate against the present applicants under section 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code stating therein that applicant no.1 was Chairman of Nagrik Sahkari Bank, which is a Co-operative Bank and functions under the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. At the relevant time, applicant no.2 was Manager of the Bank. During their tenure as Chairman and Manager of the Bank on their approval, Bank purchased 238 bonds of Industrial Investment Bank of India. It is alleged that they paid face value of Rs. 46,000/- for each bond, while the bonds were carrying value of Rs. 16,000/- each and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 71,40,000/-. 4. According to the present applicants each bond has face value and market value. The bonds were purchased at the market value and infact the Bank was benefited by Rs. 1,40,000/-. 5. As per the counsel for the applicants, they were granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6929/2014 vide order dated 17-11-2014 as they were apprehending their arrest in execution of non-bailable warrant issued against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in criminal case no.27744/2014 under sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. On similar facts, the CBI, New Delhi was also investigating the matter and now they have filed a charge sheet in this matter as the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is not competent to grant bail to the present applicants. They apprehend that if they appear before the learned Magistrate, they will be taken into custody. 6. However, the counsel for the respondent argues that the matter was inquired into by various teams of the Bank and it was found that loss of Rs. 71,40,000/- was caused. They apprehend that if they appear before the learned Magistrate, they will be taken into custody. 6. However, the counsel for the respondent argues that the matter was inquired into by various teams of the Bank and it was found that loss of Rs. 71,40,000/- was caused. The matter in respect of recovery of the amount from the present applicants was also pending before the Co-operative Tribunal. The Co-operative Tribunal ordered stay of recovery of payment of 25% amount by the present applicants to the Bank. 7. However, the present applicants filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 10181/2012. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20-11-2012 reduced the amount to 10% to be deposited by the present applicants within 15 days. In this order it was also pointed out by the Hon'ble Division Bench that the contention of the present applicants that they are not liable to deposit any amount cannot be accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10181/2012, the present applicants deposited 10% of the amount i.e. Rs. 7,18,000/- in the account of the Bank. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application on the ground by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, LAWS (SC)-2013-12-7 stating therein that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when a non-bailable warrant is issued against the applicants. 10. In response, learned counsel for the applicants places reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4662 in which it was held that the Court have power to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offence even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed provided facts of the case requires Courts to do so. 11. In the present case, it is admitted that on the same facts in a complaint case filed by one Jagmohan s/o Late Ramlal Verma, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 11. In the present case, it is admitted that on the same facts in a complaint case filed by one Jagmohan s/o Late Ramlal Verma, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the present applicants. They have already deposited 10% amount of the alleged loss caused to the Bank in compliance of this Court order in the above mentioned writ petition and therefore there appears to be no reason for not extending the benefit of provisions of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code to the present applicants in this case also. The apprehension of their arrest by the concerning Magistrate appears to be just and reasonable. 12. Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find that it is fit case where the benefit of provision under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code may be extended to the present applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 13. It is directed that in the event of arrest the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) each and a solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerning Magistrate or Arresting Officer as the case may be, with the following conditions :- (i) that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) that they shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) that they would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3), Criminal Procedure Code meticulously. Certified copy as per rules.