JUDGMENT M.Venkata Ramana, J. - A2 in crime No.116 of 2013 of I Town Police Station, Srikalahasthi is the petitioner. Investigation in this case is taken over by C.I.D of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner is requesting anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the respondent Police. 2. This instance is one connected to the alleged fraud involving Akshaya gold. On account of failure to repay the amounts to the subscribers of various schemes introduced by this company, it appears that a complaint was lodged in I Town Police Station, Srikalahasthi on 17.07.2013, where a case was initially registered for the offence under section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. Later on, basing on the investigation, Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') and other allied offences namely Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6(c) r/w Section 2 of the Prized Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978, were added. 3. The petitioner is concerned to multiple number of cases in various districts. It appears that the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur is directed to look into these matters by the orders of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and is seized of all the matters relating to Akshaya gold. 4. Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was in judicial custody for a fairly long period and later on, he was released on bail and that in some other instance also, considering the situation of the petitioner, he was granted anticipatory bail, referring to orders in Crl.P.No.913 of 2020, dated 29.02.2020 of this Court. Reference to relief to other accused as per orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.2014 of 2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 by an order dated 07.06.2019 is also brought to the notice of this Court. A recent order in favour of A6 in Crl.P.No.1520 of 2020 dated 31.03.2020 is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly pointing out that there is a reference in the same crime that the investigation is on the verge of completion. A recent order in favour of A6 in Crl.P.No.1520 of 2020 dated 31.03.2020 is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly pointing out that there is a reference in the same crime that the investigation is on the verge of completion. Contending that the petitioner had never defaulted to follow the directions of this Court or any other Court at any time and that as of now, he has nothing to do with the company in question, since he was removed as the Managing Director of this company long ago, regarding which there is also a matter pending before the appropriate forum, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail, while undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that he would abide by all such terms and conditions whatever imposed. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor seriously opposed this petition mainly contending that the whole fraud in this matter involves Rs.540 Crores and a number of individuals were made to suffer on account of transactions in this company. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further contended that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the company from the beginning and at relevant point of time, whose role in this alleged fraud, is certainly indicated. While pointing out the enormity of the entire incident and requesting not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner, it is requested to dismiss this petition. 6. Elaborate arguments are submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor. In this context, citing various instances, where the petitioner, inspite of having the benefit of anticipatory bail, did not choose to appear before the concerned authorities, following the directions therein and also to the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Courts as required. 7. The enormity of the incident should necessarily be taken into consideration. The entire claim as alleged by the prosecution, has seriously affected lives of many people. From the material on record, it appears that the FIR was registered in 2013. The investigating agency has invoked relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and other allied enactments only in the year, 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this context, contends that by then he had nothing to do with this company and that he is no more it's Managing Director. The investigating agency has invoked relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and other allied enactments only in the year, 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this context, contends that by then he had nothing to do with this company and that he is no more it's Managing Director. Nonetheless, the activities of this company as a whole should be looked into and ultimately the investigation must make out the criminal culpability of all those involved in this episode including the petitioner. 8. With reference to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.913 of 2020 dated 29.02.2020, learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner did not avail the facility thereunder by producing necessary surities nor appear before the Station House Officer, Vuyyuru Town Police Station. However, learned counsel for the petitioner informed that because of the lock down situation at present, the petitioner is unable to appear before the above Police Station and that it is not an intentional avoidance. 9. In respect of the order in Crl.P.No.1520 of 2020 dated 31.03.2020, as rightly pointed out by learned Special Public Prosecutor, it was a case of regular bail, whereby, other accused concerned to the very same crime were directed to be released on bail. In that context, observing that the accused were in judicial custody right from 05.03.2020 and that the investigation is on the verge of the completion, benefit of bail was granted. The role of the petitioner, as such, cannot be considered to the effect that he did not have any role on the outcome of the alleged fraud. When the essential conditions forming basis on which discretion is required to be exercised under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are not attracted to the present case, it is rather difficult to accede to the request of the petitioner. Thus, finding no justification to grant anticipatory bail, this petition has to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.