ORDER : A.Y KOGJE, J. 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.K Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 is filed with a prayer for issuance of writ to comply with the principles laid down in the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and for the direction to respondent No. 2 to give 15 days time before taking any coercive step including arrest of the petitioner. 3. Referring to the present petition, it would be necessary to refer to a previous round of litigation in connection with the very same C.R being I-C.R No. 57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code being Criminal Misc. Application No. 13631 of 2016, which came to be concluded by CAV order dated 29.06.2016, wherein, this Court in paras 17, 18 and 19 has observed/directed as under: “17. For the foregoing reasons, the present application fails and is, accordingly, rejected. While not entertaining the application, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the dictum of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 . At the same time, the applicant is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the offence in question by giving his specimen handwriting and also in providing all the required details. 18. It is also expected of the Investigating Agency that when the first information report has been filed after the parties attempting to explore the possibility of the applicant repaying the entire outstanding amount of the Banks, it shall not rush for the arrest of the applicant without first collecting the evidence from the Forensic Science Laboratory to opine on the forgery of the documents. 19. The Investigating Officer shall also bear in mind that the parties are before the Debts Recovery Tribunal so far as the outstanding amount of the Banks is concerned and it should be ensured at this stage to secure the outstanding amount, which is possible through the property owned by Raj International Private Limited and given in mortgage to the Banks.” 4. In the present petition, it is the case of the petitioner that not only has the respondent No. 2 not complied with the aforementioned directions of this Court, but has flagrantly flouted the same. In para 2.4 of the petition, it is averred that on 05.07.2016 in the night hours the respondent No. 2 carried out a raid accompanied by a lady police constable while the petitioner himself was not available and was at Delhi, they entered into the residential premises and misbehaved with the family members including the wife of the petitioner and continued to be in the residential premises till 2 AM in the morning. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this conduct is a clear violation of the directions issued by this Court, more particularly, the directions not to rush for arrest of the petitioner without first collecting the evidence from Forensic Science Laboratory. It is submitted that considering the nature of offence and the period that has lapsed, even as per the FIR, from the date of commission of offence in the year 2011 and registration of the FIR in May 2016, after 5 years there was no occasion for the respondent No. 2 to have conducted himself in the manner as alleged in the petition. He also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is not acting bona fide and in the direction of carrying out a free and fair investigation, as till date no charge-sheet has been filed, though the investigation appears to have been completed long back. He submitted that the action on the part of the respondent on 05.07.2016 was to arrest the petitioner, but as he was not available the petitioner could not be arrested, though the same was in violation of the direction of this Court. 6. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes this petition. It is submitted that respondent No. 2-P.K. Diyora has already filed an affidavit, however, the same is not on record. 6. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes this petition. It is submitted that respondent No. 2-P.K. Diyora has already filed an affidavit, however, the same is not on record. A xerox copy from the file of the petitioner is received and learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection if the same be taken into consideration and ratifies that it is the xerox copy of the affidavit of respondent No. 2-P.K. Diyora dated 26.07.2016 In this affidavit, the respondent No. 2 has justified his action on 05.07.2016 on the basis that he had received an information about the availability of bogus and fabricated seals and other documents and that the petitioner was likely to be available at his residence on the given period along with this bogus and fabricated seals, and hence, after taking due care of being accompanied by a woman police constable, the respondent No. 2 had acted as a part of the investigation. It is contended in the affidavit that on account of delayed communication about the order of the High Court in the previous petition, the action was taken however, after the order was received the respondent No. 2 he has not visited the residence of the accused. In fact, it is contended that the respondent No. 2 or any police officer have not misbehaved with any of the family members of the petitioner. It is contended in the affidavit that the petitioner is an accused of swindling of public money to the tune of Rs. 117.64 crores and the same being of serious nature and magnitude the respondent No. 2 was acting bona fide in the interest of investigation. 7. The respondent No. 2 in the affidavit has tendered unconditional apology and even before this Court has expressed apology through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Having considered the rival facts of the case, more particularly, the nature of offence, the stage of investigation and the directions, which are already issued in the CAV order dated 29.06.2016, this Court is of the view that the unconditional apology ought to be accepted with an observation that in future the respondent No. 2 shall show enthusiasm to comply with the directions of a Court of law in letter and spirit rather than to cater to requirements of a private individual. 9. 9. In so far as the relief claimed by the petitioner it has come to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing that the petitioner had preferred anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1687 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court, Surat, which came to be disposed of on 30.07.2016 In view of the order dated 07.07.2016, which came to be extended from time to time by this Court, the petition therefore, is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may file an application for anticipatory bail afresh which may be decided by the concerned Sessions Court on its own merits without being influenced by the order/observations passed by this Court in the present petition. Till the filing of the petition for anticipatory bail before the concerned Sessions Court, the interim order granted by this Court by order dated 07.07.2016 and extended thereafter, from time to time shall continue to operate. It would be open for the concerned Sessions Court upon the filing of the application for anticipatory bail to take its own decision for grant of any interim protection or otherwise. The petitioner is granted time of three weeks if he so desires to file an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C before the concerned Sessions Court. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.