JUDGMENT : Anoop Chitkara, J. The petitioner, who ran liquor vends, with three licenses obtained in the name of his wife, Harpriya, and one in the name of Rohit Kumar Rana, apprehending his imminent arrest on being arraigned as accused no. 2, whereas in fact, he is the Principal accused, in FIR number 08 of 2019, dated Sep. 5, 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, in the file of Police Station SV and ACB, Una, District Una, HP, disclosing non-bailable offences, came up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Prior to the present bail petition, he along with his wife Harpriya, prima facie, in whose name he had taken three liquor vends, and one Rohit, prima facie, in whose name he had taken one liquor vend, had filed a petition under Section 438 CrPC, before Special Judge-II, Una, HP. However, vide order dated 21-09-2019, the Court dismissed all the three petitions, on the grounds that a huge amount was involved. 3. After that the Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 438 CrPC, in this Court, which was registered as CrMP(M) No. 1771 of 2019. However, vide order dated Sep 27, 2019, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had dismissed the same, on the grounds of nonappearance of the petitioner, despite directions to appear. 4. After around three weeks of the order of dismissal of the bail, the Petitioner again filed a petition under Section 438 CrPC, in this Court. Vide order dated Oct 17, 2019, a co-ordinate bench of this grant granted interim pre-arrest bail. However, vide order date Oct 21, 2019, the bench recused itself to hear the matter anymore. 5. Various status reports, reporting updated investigation had been filed by the State, on various dates. The Investigating officer had also shown the police file, which after going through the same, was returned, in the Court itself. 6. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. I have seen the status reports as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition. 7. 6. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. I have seen the status reports as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner states that the accused had joined the investigation as and when the Investigating Officer so directed him, he co-operated with the Investigator, and that custodial investigation is not likely to achieve any objective. To the contrary, Learned Additional Advocate General stated that the accused/Petitioner has misled the investigation, told lies, and exploited the interim protection. Learned Advocate General has cited the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on Sep 5, 2019. Placing reliance upon paragraphs 72 to 76 of this precedent, he seeks dismissal of this petition. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General also stated that the second bail petition under 438 CrPC is not maintainable. FACTS : 8. The gist of the case, sufficient to decide the present bail petition, discloses the following factual matrix: (a) The Petitioner, in the name of his wife Harpriya, had obtained a liquor license (L-14) in District Una, during Financial Year 2018-19, of three excise vends, namely, Unit No. 6 (Rakker Colony), Unit No. 37 (Sanoli), and Unit No. 43 (Udaypur). (b) The Petitioner had obtained one license for vend Unit No. 13 (Jhalera), in the name of Rohit Kumar, for the financial year 2018-19. (c) During the next financial year, i.e., 2019-20, the Department of Excise, renewed all these four licenses. (d) In July 2019, during the audit of the Excise department, conducted by Audit officers of the office of the Accountant General of India, it revealed that some e-challans, submitted by Harpriya Manhas, in respect of Units 6, 37, and 43 did not match from the data contained in E-Portal named ‘E-Kosh’. In all, 286 challans did not match with the data of E-Kosh. (e) On the physical verification, it revealed that all these 286 challans were fake and not genuine. (f) After that, one cheque amounting to Rs. 43,62,088/- paid in discharge of liability, did not encash for the reasons that the account linked to such cheque, had insufficient balance. (g) Further inquiry revealed that Fixed Deposit receipt for Rs. (e) On the physical verification, it revealed that all these 286 challans were fake and not genuine. (f) After that, one cheque amounting to Rs. 43,62,088/- paid in discharge of liability, did not encash for the reasons that the account linked to such cheque, had insufficient balance. (g) Further inquiry revealed that Fixed Deposit receipt for Rs. 27,69,740/- given as security by Harpriaya Manhas; Fixed Deposit receipt for Rs. 5,63,000/- given as security by Rohit Kumar, issued by Himachal Gramin Bank, Una, were also fake. (h) Such evidence led to the registration of above mentioned FIR against the three accused persons, namely Harpriya Manhas, Amil Manhar and Rohit Kumar Rana. 9. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General for the State of HP submits that an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,63, 45, 640/- was shown to have been paid by fictitious e-challans. In return, the licensee received stock of liquor of the same amount. Apart from this, the FDR amounting to Rs. 27,69,740/-, pledged as security was fake. ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 10. Prima facie it is inferable that the bail petitioner is the Principal accused. He took three liquor vends in the name of his wife and one in the name of Rohit Kumar. It is inferable that the Petitioner ran the entire show, conceptualized the business, created infrastructure, did financial dealings. He was the wholly solely in-charge of the entire show. 11. In the status report filed in the bail petition of wife of the Petitioner, such status report dated 15-11-2019, disclosed that it came in the investigation that the accused Harpriya Manhas, came to know about this fraud only in the month of August 2019. She further told the investigator that her husband Amil Manhas ran the business, and she was prima facie unaware of any details of the business. 12. On Oct 22, 2019, when this petition came up for arguments, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that the entire money was paid and allegations of 286 challans being forged, were incorrect. On this, the Investigator sought time to file fresh status report. 13. On Nov 1, 2019, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that the entire money was paid and allegations of 286 challans being forged, were incorrect. On this, the Investigator sought time to file fresh status report. 13. On Nov 1, 2019, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that he needs copies of the statements of the bank accounts to demonstrate that against each challan, the bank accounts of the accused had been debited. He wanted to show the accounts to chartered accountant for verification of the fact. 14. On Nov 15, 2019, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that the Petitioner had engaged a Chartered Accountant, who is based at Chandigarh and he could not complete the verification of accounts. 15. On Nov 29, 2019, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that the Chartered Accountant has done partial Audit and sought further time. 16. On Dec 17, 2019, on the submissions made by the State, the Investigator was directed to make enquiries from the Chartered Accountant, by visiting Chandigarh. 17. On Dec 21, 2019, Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Sr. Advocate, on instructions from the petitioner Amil Manhas, submitted that the all 286 challans were never presented by the bail petitioner or by any of the accused. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General contended that the Petitioner changed his stand by stating that he had engaged the Chartered Accountant only a couple of days before, and had thus took the Investigator for a ride. 18. The present bail petitioner, which is under 438 CrPC, and not a regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, and this Court had granted interim protection so that the Petitioner co-operates in the investigation and after that if the investigation is over, that factor would have assumed prime importance. But, in the present case, the Petitioner not only misused the interim protection, but did not cooperate in the investigation. 19. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. But, in the present case, the Petitioner not only misused the interim protection, but did not cooperate in the investigation. 19. Pre-trial incarceration needs to be justified depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State. 20. Given the above analysis and discussions, in my considered opinion, the custodial investigation of the petitioner/accused is required to take the investigation to its logical end. The investigator must ascertain the role of employees of the Excise department, if any, and also the need to conduct a Forensic Audit. Consequently, the petitioner does not deserve the judicial discretion of anticipatory bail, as stipulated under Section 438 CrPC. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Interim protection granted vide order dated Oct 17, 2019 is vacated. 21. Observations made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion either for future bail petitions or for all further proceedings whatsoever and neither the Investigating Officer nor the trial Court shall form an opinion based on these observations.