JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for release of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25 of 2020 of Naregal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 18(2) of PDS Controlling Order-1992. 2. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on 09.05.2020 at about 3.30 p.m. Food Inspector along with Revenue off icials conducted raid on the house of petitioner-accused and seized 71 bags of rice of 50 Kgs each which were meant for public distribution. On registering the case, the police off icials are making an attempt to arrest the petitioner. The bail petition of the accused before the Sessions Court is rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rice was stored in his house for the purpose of Annasantarpana by the devotees, as the house of the accused-petitioner is near the Hanuman Temple. The said rice bags were kept in his house, but there are no allegation by the concerned Food and Civil Supplies Department or by the Revenue officials regarding theft of rice meant for public distribution system. The police off icials are making an attempt to arrest the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the detention of the petitioner would be put to great hardship. 5. Per Contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the officials of Revenue and Food and Civil Supplies Department have conducted raid and have seized the rice which were illegally stored in the house of petitioner-accused. No satisfactory reply was given by the petitioner regarding illegal storage of the rice bags. In the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond and interfere in the investigation. Investigation is not yet completed and the presence of the petitioner is required for interrogation. 6. As could be seen from the records, the revenue officials and Food Inspector have conducted the raid in the house of the complainant and have seized 71 bags of rice meant for public distribution system. 7. Investigation is not yet completed and the presence of the petitioner is required for interrogation. 6. As could be seen from the records, the revenue officials and Food Inspector have conducted the raid in the house of the complainant and have seized 71 bags of rice meant for public distribution system. 7. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the devotees of temple had stored rice bags in his house and he is not at allinvolved in an illegal storage of the rice. The main contention is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 8. Generally, no inf lexible guidelines or straight jacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. All circumstances and situations for future cannot be clearly visualized for grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , has observed that one of the parameters that can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and fullinvestigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustif ied detention of the accused. Generally, arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arrest of the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the instant case according to the prosecution, the officials of revenue and Food and Civil Supplies Department have seized PDS rice, it is submitted that there is no mention in seizure panchanama regarding seal found on all bags to show that they are the PDS rice bags. The defence put forth is that the petitioner has facilitated the devotees of Hanuman temple to keep the rice in his house. The defence put forth is that the petitioner has facilitated the devotees of Hanuman temple to keep the rice in his house. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give specif ic f inding about these records. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. 11. The registration of the case and submission of the learned counsel goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioner regarding arrest and detention. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail , the accused is likely to interfere with the investigation and threaten the prosecution witnesses. The said objections may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to the accused/petitioner, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order on any working day and on his appearance, the Investigating Off icer shallinterrogate the petitioner and enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Off icer. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Of ficer and the Court as and when required. iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure any of the prosecution witnesses. v. The petitioner shall give attendance to the concerned police station every Sunday tillfiling of the charge sheet. Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.