ORDER : The petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.227/2019 of Sindgi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘EC Act’). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, based on credible information received by him, the complainant who is Food Inspector of the Office of the Tahsildar, Sindgi Rural, obtained necessary permission and guidance by the Tahsildar and joined by panchas and other members of the raiding team, proceeded to Chandkavathe village as per the information. In the outskirts of the said village, they noticed a goods carrier motor vehicle coming opposite to their vehicles and these people stopped the said vehicle. In the said vehicle, they noticed a driver and cleaner by name Gudulal and Babu respectively, were carrying 27 bags of rice in total weighing 1,350 kgs. which food item was meant for public distribution. The said transportation of the goods was without any licence or permission and by enquiry with those two people who apprehended on the spot, they came to know that it was being transported to sell it to the present petitioner, who is accused No.3 in the crime. The said complaint of the Revenue Inspector was registered in Crime No.227/2019 in the respondent – Sindgi police station for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of EC Act. The investigation is said to be pending. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged suspicion against the present petitioner is only based on alleged revelation of his name by accused Nos.1 and 2 which alleged revelation is totally baseless. He further submits that the present petitioner is in no way connected with sale or purchase of any items including rice and is a stranger to the alleged incident. However, because his name corresponds with the name of alleged accused No.3 said to have been revealed by accused Nos.1 and 2, the Police are apprehending him, as such, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that two accused who were caught hold on the spot have revealed the name of the present petitioner and quoted him as the purchaser of the said goods. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that two accused who were caught hold on the spot have revealed the name of the present petitioner and quoted him as the purchaser of the said goods. As such, prima facie, there are material to show the said acts committed by the present petitioner in the alleged incident. 5. A perusal of the material placed before this Court at this stage prima facie would go to show that it is based on the alleged revelation of the name of one Saleem, the police said to have been arraigned said Saleem also as Accused No.3. The allegation against said Saleem/accused No.3 appears to be that the goods which were seized were said to have been transported for selling the same to said Saleem. The present petitioner claims his name as Mohammed Saleem and is in no way connected with said Saleem, however, he claims that the police are repeatedly approaching him for his arrest. The learned High Court Government Pleader does not deny that the police are approaching the present petitioner for his arrest in the matter, however, he is not available. Thus, the petitioner has shown that there is apprehension of his arrest. The complaint at this stage would go to show that it is only based on disclosure of name by accused Nos.1 and 2, one Saleem is said to have been arraigned as accused No.3. Further, even according to the prosecution, the arrest of present petitioner is not warranted for investigation since no recovery is required to be made at the instance of the present petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the presence of present petitioner for investigation can be ensured by imposing conditions. As such, he deserves his enlargement on the relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. In the event the petitioner is arrested by the respondent-Sindgi Police Station, in Crime No.227/2019, for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of EC Act, he shall be enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/Court. 40,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/Court. (ii) Petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case is pending, within ten days from today. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9.00 am and 1.00 p.m. and mark his attendance till the charge sheet is filed. (iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (v) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain an acknowledgment in that regard.