ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. These three appeals pertain to four appellants seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR registered by the respondent arising from the award of a contract for multimedia campaign executed by the Department of Information and Public Relations(for short"DIPR" ) of the State of Assam by involving the creative agencies and media buying agencies who are the appellants before us. The three media buying agencies were selected by the DIPR for State Government of Assam being the Brahmaputra Television Network(BTN) of Rajiv Kumar Bora and Anjana Bora, Delta Publicity(DP) of Dilip Ch. Kalita and Pradip Advertmt.(PA) of Apurba Lahkar. 3. According to the respondent, the process by which the above contracts were awarded is highly questionable and has criminal ramification also therefore an FIR has been registered on 20th October, 2017 under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Special Vigilance Cell Police Station as Case No. 8 of 2017. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended before us that they have been cooperating with the investigation and giving whatever information is called for. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General contended on behalf of the respondent that the custodial interrogation is necessary for securing complete information. In this behalf, learned counsel relied on the observations made in Maruti Nivrutti Navale v. State of Maharashtra and another 2012(9) SCC 235 and State represented by CBI v. Anil Sharma 1997(7) SCC 187 more specifically the observations made in para 6 as to the importance of custodial interrogation and how it is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. 6. The facts forming the basis of the alleged offences are a matter of record. We hardly see any scope for any dispute regarding those facts. It is only the motive and circumstances leading to the award of the contract which need to be investigated to record a conclusion whether any one of the offences alleged took place. 7. We have gone through the FIR meticulously and examined the submissions of the parties in the context and the material before us. A large part of the transaction is through a banking channel. 7. We have gone through the FIR meticulously and examined the submissions of the parties in the context and the material before us. A large part of the transaction is through a banking channel. They are, however, stated to have large cash withdrawals by the appellants on which the respondent has sought information from the appellants. 8. In a matter like this, any observation w.r.t. the record would have adverse ramifications on the interests of either the State or the appellants. Therefore, we desist. In our view, the ends of justice would be served if the respondent is permitted to interrogate the appellants excluding appellant Anjana Bora from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for continuous period of 7 days. We also deem it appropriate that the respondents be directed to videograph the entire interrogation process to avoid any allegations from either side regarding the violation of law or this order. 9. The concerned appellants shall be present on the dates intimated by the respondents at least two days in advance. Appellant Anjana Bora will also cooperate in the investigation. In case any further extension is required, the respondent State is at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate directions. 10. The appellants will not be arrested in terms aforesaid. 11. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.