JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. 2. The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No. 130 of 2020 of Proddatur III Town Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. 3. The alleged offences against the petitioner are under Sections 408, 420, 464, 468, 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein, who is A-1, is the owner of a rice godown. He along with some farmers, who are A-4 to A-55 availed loan of Rs.5,66,43,000/- from the Bank. The petitioner as A-1, availed about 1.5 Crores of loan along with farmers. The rice that was stored in the godown of A-1 by the farmers was pledged to the bank as security for discharge of the said loan. While so, without discharging the loan to the Bank, A-1 in collusion with A-2 and A-3 and other accused, got the said rice released which was stored in the godown and which is under the pledge to the bank, by creating fake documents like release order to that effect. Therefore, the petitioner and other accused committed the aforesaid offences. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the bank has already issued notice under the SARFAESI Act and the proceedings under the said act are initiated. The grievance of the bank is only to recover the loan amount. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, no offence whatsoever is constituted against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is apprehending unnecessary arrest in the hands of the police in the above crime. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that the rice that was stored in the godown of A-1 was pledged to the Bank as a security to discharge the huge loan of 5.66 Crores. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal petition. He would submit that the rice that was stored in the godown of A-1 was pledged to the Bank as a security to discharge the huge loan of 5.66 Crores. While the said rice in the godown was under pledge to the bank, A-1 colluded with other accused and created a fake release order without discharging the loan amount and as such, the complicity of the petitioner in committing the aforesaid offences is prima facie apparent from the record. Investigation is still pending. Therefore, he would submit that in view of the seriousness of the allegation that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. The material facts of the prosecution case are not disputed before this Court. Admittedly, A-1 is the owner of the godown, in which the rice is stored. The fact that 5.66 Crores of loan was availed from the bank by the farmers, is not in controversy. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner as A-1 has availed 1.5 Crores of loan from the said bank is also not a dispute. It is also not disputed that a release order was issued to release the said rice under the pledge of the Bank. The fact that the said loan was not discharged, is also not in dispute. Therefore, when the loan is still subsisting and when the release order was issued without discharging the said loan, it prima facie shows that a false and fake release order was issued to release the rice which is under pledge to the Bank. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, as it is a case where 5.66 Crores of money is involved which was granted towards loan by the Bank and as the rice that was pledged toward security to discharge the said loan was released without discharge of the said loan, the facts of the case prima facie show that the accusation made against the petitioner in this case is well founded. So, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. So, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, since all the offences, for which the FIR is registered, are punishable with less than seven (07) years period of imprisonment, the Investigation Officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines prescribed by the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 case.