JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The petitioner Prasan Kumar Patra has filed this application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for bail in connection with E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.14 of 2018 pending on the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter 'O.P.I.D. Act'). 2. On 30.07.2018 one Manoranjan Mishra of Kanan Vihar, Phase-II, P.S.-Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar alleging therein that during November 2012 after going through the advertisement of M/s. ZInfra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'the company') about availability of plots under Jatani Tahasil near IIT relatively in lower price in the Pragyan Vihar Project, he contacted the petitioner who was the Managing Director of the company at his office located at IRC Village, Nayapalli to purchase a plot measuring an area of 2400 sq.ft. in the project. The petitioner along with his officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title of the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road to the plot. They also told the informant that the total project area has been purchased by them. The cost of the plot was Rs.3,60,000/- and they charged Rs.35,000/- for conversion of the land and Rs.60,000/- for constructing boundary wall around the plot. The informant paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) on 11.08.2012 as booking amount and obtained a receipt from the company. It is the further case of the informant that on 05.11.2012 he paid another Rs. 3,50,000/-(rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) and obtained a receipt whereafter the petitioner registered the land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant by way of a registered sale deed. The land corresponds to Mouza-Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 dec. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. The land corresponds to Mouza-Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 dec. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. It is the further case of the informant that though the registration of the plot was made in November 2012 but there was no approach road to the said plot and the petitioner and others of his company falsely told the informant that they have right and title over entire Pragyan Vihar Project. They had knowledge that they were not having right, title over the area, in spite of that they had received the payment from the informant with an intention to deceive him. In spite of registration of the land in favour of the informant, the same is serving no purpose. It is stated that the petitioner and other officers of the company have deceived the informant with an amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is stated that in spite of repeated approach by the informant to the petitioner and other officials, they have not constructed the boundary wall around the plot as promised even though they received the amount since last six years. It is further stated that the petitioner as Managing Director and others have cheated about five hundred persons and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 20 crores. In some cases, registration of a plot has been done but there is no approach road and in some cases, registration has not been made even though payment has been received and in some cases, a particular plot has been sold to number of persons creating problem in mutation of land. The accused persons after misappropriating the amount absconded by closing their office. 3. On the basis of such first information report, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 was registered under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act against the petitioner and Soumendra Narayan Dalabehera, Chief General Manager and others. During course of investigation, it was found that the company was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 having registered office at Plot No.209, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. During course of investigation, it was found that the company was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 having registered office at Plot No.209, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. One Smt. Rasmita Patra was the Director and the petitioner who is her husband was the Managing Director of the Company. During November 2012, the company made wide publicity about the availability of plots near IIT under Jatani Tahasil in lower price. Being induced by the advertisement of the Company, the informant contacted the petitioner to purchase a plot in the project. The Directors of the Company along with their officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title over the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road. The informant paid Rs. 4,55,000/-to the Company and the petitioner registered land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant knowing very well that the company had not purchased the land which was required for construction of approach road to the plot. It was found that in some cases, registration of a plot has been made even though there was no approach road, in some cases registration was not made even though payment had been received and in some cases, excess lands were sold in a plot to many persons creating problem in mutation of land. The petitioner and other accused persons absconded by closing their office after misappropriating the amount. Investigation further revealed that in the similar fashion, the petitioner and others of the company cheated about six hundred persons and misappropriated an amount more than Rs.12 crores. The documents/registers seized from the petitioner showed that the company had collected cash of Rs. 12,27,31564/- from six hundred sixty two investors. The documents such as brochures, money receipts, sale deeds, agreement etc. were seized from the witnesses. The office of petitioner located at Nayapalli was searched and many incriminating documents, investors entry registers were seized. Investigation also revealed that the petitioner had sixty percent share holder in the company whereas his wife Smt. Rashmita Patra had forty percent share holder in the company. were seized from the witnesses. The office of petitioner located at Nayapalli was searched and many incriminating documents, investors entry registers were seized. Investigation also revealed that the petitioner had sixty percent share holder in the company whereas his wife Smt. Rashmita Patra had forty percent share holder in the company. It was found that the company represented through the petitioner and Director Smt. Rasmita Patra with an intention to defraud the investors, collected more than rupees twelve crores from them in a pre-planned manner under false assurance to provide plotted land in Bhubaneswar area at a reasonable rate with boundary and approaching road under different schemes but subsequently cheated them by not providing the same as promised. It was also found during investigation that petitioner as Managing Director of the company and others have collected huge amount from the prospective buyers and executed sale deeds of plots over which the company had no right, title, interest or possession. In some cases, they had not registered any plot to the investors. In this process, the Directors of the company have defaulted to return the deposits and also failed to render service for which the deposits were made and as such the petitioner and other Directors of the Company being responsible for the management of the affairs of the financial establishment were also liable for prosecution under section 6 of O.P.I.D. Act, 2011. During course investigation, on scrutiny of bank account statements in favour of the Company and its Directors, it was found that cash of Rs. 8,42,10,203/- had been entered in the accounts of the petitioner and cash of Rs. 6,66,748/- have been entered in the account of Rasmita Patra during this period. Cash of Rs. 3,38,000/- had also transferred from the company's account to the account of Rasmita Patra. During investigation, it further revealed that the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company in favour of the investors were fake and fabricated and the same were prepared in order to cheat the investors. The petitioner along with others had collected more than rupees twelve crores from the informant as well as other investors. During investigation, it further revealed that the money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company in favour of the investors were fake and fabricated and the same were prepared in order to cheat the investors. The petitioner along with others had collected more than rupees twelve crores from the informant as well as other investors. The investigating officer came to hold that the company represented through the petitioner and others, with an intention to defraud the investors, collected crores of rupees from them in a pre-planned manner under the false assurance to provide plots with boundary wall and approachable road at Kansapada area at reasonable rate under different schemes but subsequently cheated them by not providing the same as promised. The petitioner and others connived with each other, created fake documents and issued fake agreement, money receipts to the investors by not giving them plot with boundary wall and approach road at Kansapada area. The investigating officer found prima facie evidence against the petitioner and others under sections 467, 468, 471, 406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act and accordingly he submitted charge-sheet on 29.11.2018 against them keeping further investigation open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., 1973 to trace out movable and immovable properties of the company so also its Directors and associates, for scrutinisation of the bank accounts, to ascertain the money trailing and to collect the certified copies of sale deeds pertaining to the landed property standing in the name of the company and its Directors and to examine many more witnesses. 4. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack which was rejected on 29.11.2018 on the ground that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner, the investigation is at a nascent stage and it is an economic offence and also taking into account its wide ramification. 5. Mr. 4. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack which was rejected on 29.11.2018 on the ground that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner, the investigation is at a nascent stage and it is an economic offence and also taking into account its wide ramification. 5. Mr. Prasant Kishore Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner in his own inimitable elegant style contended that the O.P.I.D Act came into force on 17.08.2013 and in the case in hand the occurrence stated to have taken place in November 2012 and the F.I.R. was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 30.07.2018 and therefore, the registration of the F.I.R. and also the submission of first charge sheet under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act was not proper and justified. He argued that since payment has been made for purchase of plot in Pragyan Vihar Project floated by the company and after receipt of the payment, sale deed has been executed, such payment would not come within the definition of 'deposit' as envisaged under section 2 (b) of O.P.I.D. Act and if the informant was aggrieved as according to him there was no approachable road to his plot then he could have approached the petitioner for taking refund of the money so paid as sale consideration by cancelling the sale deed and surrendering the plot. It is submitted that the informant cannot be said to be an investor and it is a simple case of sale and purchase of a piece of plot and dispute is basically civil in nature and addition of an offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act is nothing but a glaring case of colourable exercise of the power. It is further submitted that there is nothing on record that the petitioner had promised to provide an approach road to the plot of the informant and there is no element of cheating to the informant at the time of sale of plot and when the informant had got the land mutated and obtained a R.O.R. in his name, the registration of the F.I.R. is nothing but malafide one. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.08.2018 and his further detention in judicial custody particularly when charge sheet has already been submitted, is not necessary and since there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence and the petitioner has got two minor children, his bail application may be favourably considered. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that even though the first charge sheet was submitted on 29.11.2018 but further investigation on some important aspects is still continuing. He further submitted that the definition of 'deposit' as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act has undergone a sea change in view of the amendment which has been made by virtue of Odisha Act 15 of 2016 which came into force on 11.11.2016. If a company carries on business by receiving deposit under any scheme, arrangement or in any other manner or indulge in selling land to the depositors or received money to provide developed land then such company would come within the definition of 'financial establishment' as defined under section 2(d) of O.P.I.D. Act. A chart has been annexed to the written note of submission to show as to how from forty seven investors, deposits have been collected by the company on different dates as per agreement and how in most of the cases no mutation has yet been done. In no case, possession of the land has been delivered to the purchasers. It is contended that the petitioner is a white-collar offender and investigation conducted so far indicates that crores of rupees have been cheated from the poor investors and at this stage when further investigation is under progress on some important aspects, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering with the evidence. 6. Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, cogent reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. 6. Law is well settled that detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion on merits of the case need not be undertaken while adjudicating a bail application. The Court has to indicate in the bail order, cogent reasons for prima facie conclusion why bail was being granted, particularly, when the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, criminal antecedents of the accused, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, apprehension of threat to the informant and the witnesses, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial and above all the larger interests of the public or State are required to be taken note of by the Court while granting bail. Even though grant of bail is a discretionary one but such discretion is to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The placement of the accused in the society, the character, behaviour and means of the accused cannot by itself be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail. If the Court feels that under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, his right to bail cannot be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community is against him. The law relating to bail in cases of economic offences is more or less settled in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I. reported in (2013) 55 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 825, State of Gujarat v. Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1321 and Nimmagadda Prasad v. C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 . In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), it is held as follows:- "15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 16. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of public/State and other similar considerations." In case of Mohan Lal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), it is held as follows:- "5. xx xx xx The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest". In case of Nimmagadda Prasad (supra), it is held as follows:- "25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." Therefore, economic offences are considered grave offences as it affects the economy of the country as a whole and such offences having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public fund are to be viewed seriously. Economic offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. Economic offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design solely with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. In such type of offences, while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, inter alia, the larger interest of public and State. The nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact on the society are always important considerations in such a case and those aspects must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on bail applications. 7. According to the informant, he deposited a total sum of Rs. 4,55,000/- (rupees four lakh fifty five thousand) in the Company on different dates and registration of plot was made in his favour in November 2012 which was obviously prior to the enactment of the O.P.I.D. Act. However, there are other depositors who have deposited their hard earned money in the company for getting plots after the O.P.I.D. Act came into force on 17.08.2013. The brochure issued by the company not only indicates about providing the approach road to the plots and development of the plots but also states that possession of the plots would be given to the customers only after completion of its development. Huge amount of money was collected by the company from different persons and registration/agreement has been made with such persons but except a few cases, mutation has not been done and possession of the plots has not been delivered in a single case. Prior to the amendment made in the year 2016, the term 'deposit' as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act meant the deposit of money either in one lump sum or by installments made with the Financial Establishment for a fixed period for interest or for return in any kind or for any service. After the amendment which came into force on 11.11.2016 as per Odisha Act 15 of 2016, the term 'deposit' as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity, to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service, by any Financial Establishment, with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form. The term 'deposit' excluded certain amounts from its purview which have been enumerated under clauses (i) to (vii) of section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act. The term 'Financial Establishment' as appears in section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act means an individual or an association of individual, a firm or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner. This term excludes a corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled by any State Government or the Central Government or a Banking Company as defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Since the company in this case was registered under the Companies Act by ROC, Odisha, Cuttack on 07.05.2009 and it was carrying on the business of receiving money from the public under Pragyan Vihar Project for providing developed plots to the investors and the terms and conditions of such business have been indicated in the brochure issued by the company, in my humble view, the company comes under 'Financial Establishment' as per section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act. The money which was deposited with the company either in one lump sum or by installments was for getting developed plots as per the assurance given in the brochure. Therefore, such money paid to the company would come within the term 'deposit' as per section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act. Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act, inter alia, states that if any Financial Establishment fails to render service for which the deposit has been made then every person responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be punished with imprisonment and fine as provided under the said section and such Financial Establishment is also liable to pay fine. The fine amount of rupees 'one lakh' and 'two lakh' were enhanced to 'ten lakh' and 'one crore' respectively by virtue of the amendment which was made in the year 2016. Even though the deposits were received prior to the enactment of the O.P.I.D. Act, as the company failed to render service in providing developed plots to the depositors under Pragyan Vihar Project, after the O.P.I.D. Act came into force, non-rendering of service makes it a 'continuing offence'. Even though the deposits were received prior to the enactment of the O.P.I.D. Act, as the company failed to render service in providing developed plots to the depositors under Pragyan Vihar Project, after the O.P.I.D. Act came into force, non-rendering of service makes it a 'continuing offence'. According to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (Special Deluxe), 'continuing' means "enduring; not terminated by a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite period or intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences". A continuing offence is the type of crime which is committed over a span of time. It is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arise out of a failure to comply certain requirements and it continues until the requirements are obeyed or complied with. On every occasion the disobedience or non-compliance occurs and reoccurs, the offence is committed. It constitutes a fresh offence every time. In case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the case of a continuing offence, the ingredients of the offence continue, i.e. endure even after the period of consummation whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage resulting from the injury may itself continue. So long as the Financial Establishment fails to render service for which the deposit has been accepted, it would be a continuing offence irrespective of the fact whether deposit was accepted prior to enactment of O.P.I.D. Act, if failure to render service continues after the Act came into force. In my humble view, the prima facie ingredients of offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act are attracted in the case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of the F.I.R. and submission of charge sheet under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act was not proper and justified cannot be accepted. 8. In my humble view, the prima facie ingredients of offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act are attracted in the case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the registration of the F.I.R. and submission of charge sheet under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act was not proper and justified cannot be accepted. 8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the informant was aggrieved as no approachable road to his plot was available, he could have approached the petitioner for taking refund of the money deposited so that it could have been done by cancelling the sale deed and surrendering the plot. It was not so easy for the informant as in spite of deposit of money since November 2012 and registration of the plot, he was not able to get possession of the developed plot as assured in the brochure. He has specifically stated that he had repeatedly approached the petitioner on a number of occasions but the boundary wall around the plot was not constructed as promised though he had paid the money in that respect since last six years and there was no approachable road to his plot. Other depositors who have invested huge amount for getting the plots under scheme floated by the company also faced similar problem. The petitioner never suggested to the depositors for taking refund of the money deposited by cancelling the sale deed and surrendering the plot. Therefore, there was no bona-fide-ness in the conduct of the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties is basically civil in nature and there is no prima facie material relating to offence of cheating to the investors at the time of sale of plot or other offences under which charge sheet has been submitted. It is prima facie apparent that even though in pen and paper, it is shown that the informant and the other investors got the plots but in actuality, they have been deprived of getting possession of the plots for various reasons which are attributable to the company. In case of M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh reported in 2002 (I) Orissa Law Reviews 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "5____in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. In case of M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh reported in 2002 (I) Orissa Law Reviews 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "5____in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal Court, the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks." In case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 35 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 128, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 10. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 10. The oral as well as documentary evidence available on record indicates that petitioner was the Managing Director of the company and prima facie it appears that the petitioner along with his wife and others have collected huge amount of deposits in a pre-planned and organized manner in the name of providing developed plots to the depositors and then cheated them and misappropriated more than twelve crores of rupees. The money receipts, agreements etc. issued by the company were found to be fake and fabricated during investigation. Without detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussions on the merits of the case but taking into account the manner in which the offence has been committed, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the manner in which the innocent poor persons were cheated of their hard earned money, availability of documentary evidence relating to money trailing from the company's accounts to the accounts of the petitioner and his wife, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence and particularly taking into account the fact that further investigation on some important aspects is under progress, in the larger interest of public and State, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application sans merit and hence stands rejected.