JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner / A-16 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.03/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 on the file of Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U, A.P. Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution and the relevant portion of the complaint against the petitioner is that the Government of India enacted the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 for extending Primary, Secondary and Super Specially Health Care Services to the employees, who are earning less than Rs.21,000/- who are covered under ESI scheme are entitled for medical facilities for self and dependents. The employees of State Insurance Scheme are being monitored by the Department of Medical Services and it comes under the control of Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories. The Director, IMS (DIMS) is the head of the Department to implement ESI scheme. Two Joint Directors (Vijayawada and Kadapa) are working under the Director, IMS to look after the supervision of ESI Dispensaries and Panel Clinics. It has come to the notice of the Government that the Directors and Staff of Insurance Medical Services (IMS), AP, Vijayawada during the period 2014-2019 procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture etc., and also purchased bio-metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure. 3. It is further case of prosecution that the petitioner who is Partner of M/s Veeresh Pharma, Shop No.GB-59, GB-60, Vasavi Pharma Market Complex, Gollapudi, Vijayawada in his statement admitted that he had approached and requested the then Directors of ESI for issuance of purchase orders and basing on the price of items to be quoted given by Pharmacist Dhana Lakshmi, he submitted quotations as per the rates given by her. She demanded 10% on the P.O value. His quotation was shown as L1 and purchase orders were issued to him. The price of the items supplied by him was 50% more than the prices under rate contract. Initially the Director, IMS instructed him to meet the then Hon'ble Minister Peethani Satyanarayana but he could not meet him. The DIMS staff demanded around 15% value of P.O and he paid accordingly in respect of M/s Veeresh Pharma and M/s Ransi Pharma. 4. Initially the Director, IMS instructed him to meet the then Hon'ble Minister Peethani Satyanarayana but he could not meet him. The DIMS staff demanded around 15% value of P.O and he paid accordingly in respect of M/s Veeresh Pharma and M/s Ransi Pharma. 4. Heard Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M.Subhani, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint and in fact the petitioner supplied material worth Rs.15 crores and till not only an amount of Rs.1.5 crores was paid to them. He further submits that in the complaint and in the remand report of other accused, it was stated that he has admitted in his statement that he had approached and requested the then Director, ESI to issue purchase order, but in fact he has not given any statement before the Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU, A.P. Vijayawada and the investigating officer himself prepared the statement and asked the petitioner to sign on it and in the compelling circumstances, the petitioner has to sign the same. He further submits that whenever requirement of medicines is there, the Pharmacist Dhana Lakshmi used to call the petitioner and he used to give quotations and the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB vehemently opposed the bail application and he has placed on record the instructions received from the Inspector of Police, ACB, CIU, Vijayawada. He submits that it is a case of criminal conspiracy with the aid of public servants wherein the public servants had taken undue advantage, performed public duty improperly and dishonestly indulged in criminal misconduct causing huge loss to the government exchequer. He further submits that the then Directors of DIMS and office staff abused their official position demanded and received bribes from various distributors in the State for issuance of purchase orders in their favour in gross violation of established procedure. As per the instructions of the Government vide memo dated 10.06.2020, the Principal Secretary, Labour Department filed written complaint before the Director General, ACB, A.P, Vijayawada and basing on the complaint, the present crime is registered. As per the instructions of the Government vide memo dated 10.06.2020, the Principal Secretary, Labour Department filed written complaint before the Director General, ACB, A.P, Vijayawada and basing on the complaint, the present crime is registered. He further submits that it came to the knowledge of the Government that during the period of 2014 and 2019 the staff of Insurance Medical Services procured drugs and medicines, medical equipment, surgical equipment, laboratory kits, furniture etc., and also purchased bio- metric machines at higher rates by violating the established procedure. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB further submits that a perusal of purchase order it was observed that most of the firms formed into a ring to avoid competitive bidding and thereby indulged in cartelization in collusion with the Directors and staff of Insurance Medical Services and caused huge loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding personal gain. He further submits that the petitioner being the son of Minister along with AO5, who was P.A to the Minister for Labour colluded with the Directors and staff of DIMS and influenced the DIMS office in issuing purchase orders and bill payments to the suppliers by showing their relationship with the then Minister for Labour, Training & Factories. He further submits that the petitioner and AO5 interfered and made arrangements to issue purchase orders to NRC distributors, who paid commission to them only and bills were paid only to the suppliers who met the petitioner and AO5 and paid commission to them. 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB further submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioner and this being socio-economic offence and the investigation being at the initial stage, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail there is every possibility that he may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses by obstructing the investigation. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Mitra Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation in C.R.M.No.6575 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015, wherein it was observed that "the possibility of the applicant wielding influence on investigation, the witnesses, on the judicial process cannot be ruled out". He also relied on the judgment of this Court in R.Veeraiah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation in C.R.M.No.6575 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015, wherein it was observed that "the possibility of the applicant wielding influence on investigation, the witnesses, on the judicial process cannot be ruled out". He also relied on the judgment of this Court in R.Veeraiah Vs. State of A.P., (2013) 2 ALD(Cri) 707 , wherein it was held that: "Where in a case it appears that granting of anticipatory bail may hamper the further investigation, the Court normally should not grant the relief of anticipatory bail. It is most unfortunate that in many cases, the influential powerful accused are escaping arrest by taking advantage of the relief available under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that there is no hard and fast rule in considering anticipatory bail applications. Each case has to be considered in its own facts and circumstances separately." 10. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of both the parties. As urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB it is no doubt true that socio-economic offences not only affect the economic structure of the nation but also and peoples' faith in the system. While considering the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the Court necessarily has to balance the personal liberty of an individual with the social interest adhering to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases observed that while granting bail the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, 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 accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with and the larger interest of the Public/State. 12. In the case on hand, there are clear allegations against the petitioner and in fact, he himself gave statement during the course of investigation before the authorities stating that they have given money to the Directors and Staff of DIMS. This is a case where there is alleged to be a huge misappropriation of money. 12. In the case on hand, there are clear allegations against the petitioner and in fact, he himself gave statement during the course of investigation before the authorities stating that they have given money to the Directors and Staff of DIMS. This is a case where there is alleged to be a huge misappropriation of money. The investigation as per the instructions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is at the threshold and several witnesses have to be examined. The apprehension of the respondent that the petitioner may influence the witnesses and interdict with investigation process cannot be completely ruled out. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the offence, specific overt acts made against the petitioner and investigation being at the threshold, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 13. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.