JUDGMENT : Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. M.T.Nanaiah and the learned counsel Sri. L.M.Chidanandayya appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P. Govindan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Special Investigation Team. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 in the FIR registered by the respondent-SIT in respect of the offences under sections 204, 405, 406, 463, 465, 468, 471 r/w sections 423 and 120-B of IPC, Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Sections 21, 23 r/w section 4(1), 4(1)(A) of MMDR Act, 1957, Sections 104 and 104(c) of Karnataka Forest Act 1963 and sections 3(A) and 3(B) r/w Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 in pursuant of a private complaint registered in PCR No.27/2011. Summons was issued to the accused persons and the matter was referred for investigation to the Lokayuktha police. In the meantime, this petitioner filed Crl.P.No.7125/11 and sought for quashing the criminal proceedings before this Court. Interim stay is granted. In the meanwhile, the co-accused Sri.S.M.Kirshna, former Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka had also filed a criminal petition No.6920/2011 and his petition was partly allowed and partly dismissed and the said order was challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.743/12. In the said proceedings, the respondent-SIT was impleaded and the Apex Court directed the entire investigation to be carried out by the respondent and submit the report within three months. In view of the direction of the Apex Court, the present FIR is registered by the SIT. The petition moved by this petitioner before the Special Court is rejected on the ground that the allegation is in the nature of economic offence. 3. It is a fact that the petitioner herein was working as Director of Mines & Geology between September 2005 to October 2007. The allegation as of now against this petitioner is, during his tenure, he allowed permits for lifting iron ore from patta lands beyond the terms of the direction issued by the Government in their order dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure-F of the objection statement). Though there was no ore in stock pertaining to Chitradurga, Dharwad and Chikamagalur, permits were issued on his direction thereby causing monetary loss to a tune of Rs.1,38,45,000/- to the State. Though there was no ore in stock pertaining to Chitradurga, Dharwad and Chikamagalur, permits were issued on his direction thereby causing monetary loss to a tune of Rs.1,38,45,000/- to the State. It is also a fact that this petitioner was arrested in Cr.No.10/2015 registered by the respondent-police and was in custody for 17 days and within that period, for 5 days he was taken to custody. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioner submits that in fact pursuant to a direction issued by the State Government as per Annexure-D dated 27.9.2005 to issue transport permits for lifting the iron ore from patta lands, he wrote back as per Annexure-E dated 27.10.2005 and brought to the notice of the State Government that issuing permits in respect of the major mineral-Iron ore mined from the patta lands, is in contravention of the Act and Rules framed by the Government of India. He had requested the State Government to seek the approval of the Central Government for issuing the permits. The State Government filed Annexure-F dated 19.1.2006 asserted to implement its order at Annexure-D. Thus, he was compelled to call for the meeting of all the concerned Officers on 17.2.2006 (Annexure-G) and it was resolved to issue transport permits limiting it only to the stocked iron ore present in the field as per the Commissioner's letter dated 13.1.2005. However, it was also resolved to levy Rs.25,000/- towards compounding of offence in each case. In fact, a circular was issued by the State Government not to allow any transportation or mining of the minerals beyond the time fixed by the Government. 5. Learned Senior counsel continues....., the petitioner was in police custody in Crime No.10/2016. It is already 12 years since the alleged transaction has taken place and the office proceedings will reflect that the entire transaction is transparent and he is not to be blamed for any loss. The petitioner being in the service of the State Government is always available for interrogation and undertakes to co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further course of investigation. Hence, his custodial interrogation in the given circumstance is not required, having regard to the nature of the allegation. 6. The petitioner being in the service of the State Government is always available for interrogation and undertakes to co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further course of investigation. Hence, his custodial interrogation in the given circumstance is not required, having regard to the nature of the allegation. 6. Sri.P.Govindan, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the respondent/S.I.T. has filed objection statement and submits that, predecessor-in-office of this petitioner had addressed a letter to the State Government (Annexure-F to the objection statement dated 13.1.2005) that no stock of ore was available at Chitradurga, Dharwad and Chickmagalur, but this petitioner allowed for issue of permits to transport ore in respect of said Districts also. Though he was in custody in respect of Crime No.10/2016, no information pertaining to this case could be collected from him since he complained of indisposition and was hospitalized during much of the period in police custody. Hence, for effective investigation, his custodial interrogation is required. It is an economic offence causing huge loss to the State exchequer and in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Nimmanagadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2013)7 SCC 466 and State of Gujarath Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987)2 SCC 364 , the petitioner is not entitled for discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 7. In the light of the above submission and on consideration of the material placed on record, it emerges that, though issue of permit exceeding the order of the Government vide Annexure-E (annexed to the objection statement) being a fact, the petitioner claims innocence of the offence alleged on the ground that the said permit was issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and Senior Geologist of Mines and Minerals and he was not responsible for issue of such permits. The area of difference between the parties since concentrates about issue of permits regarding above mentioned three Districts in respect of which there was no direction by the State Government and the petitioner since disputes his vicarious liability for the said action and he being an officer of the State presently serving since is available for the investigation, there is no impediment to allow the petition. The petition is allowed. The petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.1/2017 of respondent/Police, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall mark his attendance before the respondent/Investigating Officer on every alternate Tuesday for six months or until a final report is submitted in the matter, whichever is earlier. (ii) He shall not tamper the official records and shall not leave Karnataka State without prior permission of the concerned Special Court. In case of exigency, he is at liberty to move the Trial Court for relaxation of the said condition. (iii) In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for interim bail does not survive for consideration, hence, stands disposed of.