JUDGMENT : Hearing of this anticipatory bail application has been convened and conducted through Video-Conferencing. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kanke P.S. Case No.5 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No.320 of 2015 which has been lodged for the offences under section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; r/w Minimum Wages Act, 1948; r/w Employees State Insurance Act, 1948; r/w Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 3. By an interim order dated 18.12.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioner. Today, by the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice this matter has been listed for hearing before me. 4. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a bare reading of the complaint made by the Medical Officer, RINPAS, Kanke does not disclose dishonest intention and except a bald statement that forged challans were submitted nothing has been averred which would constitute any offence as alleged. 5. On the basis of the written report dated 13.01.2015 given by the Medical Officer, RINPAS, Sadar, Kanke P.S. Case No.5 of 2015 was registered on 13.01.2015. The petitioner is Director of M/s Cobra Industrial Security Force (I) Ltd. which had entered into the contract for supplying security guards. Subsequently, the contract was terminated and according to the RINPAS the petitioner has submitted forged challan showing deposit of CPF contribution of the security staff employed at RINPAS. 6. During the course of arguments, Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has submitted that an enquiry was instituted into the matter and a report was submitted which would establish that the petitioner has submitted forged challan, but I find that the complaint given by the Medical Officer is completely silent on this aspect. Except stating that copies of forged challan were submitted nothing has been stated in the complaint. I further find that for lodging a case on an allegation of violation of labour laws, such as, Minimum Wages Act, Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 etc., under several statutes previous sanction is necessary and a complaint can be filed by the designated authority only. Another aspect of the matter which needs consideration is that even after about 5 years the investigation in the matter is still continuing and no charge-sheet has been submitted by the petitioner. 7. Another aspect of the matter which needs consideration is that even after about 5 years the investigation in the matter is still continuing and no charge-sheet has been submitted by the petitioner. 7. The Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in his order dated 19.11.2019 has observed that paragraph nos.42 and 43 of the case diary reveal that there are huge discrepancies in the payment of actual EPF contribution and EPF amount deposited by the petitioner's Security Agency and many of the security guards have stated that they have been given less payment, but, in my opinion, these facts can be explained by the petitioner before the investigating officer during the course of investigation or during the trial and, therefore, on such allegations, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not be refused anticipatory bail. Yet another aspect of the matter is that there is no allegation of misuse by the petitioner of the privilege granted to him vide order dated 18.12.2019; his post-bail conduct. 8. Considering the overall circumstances in the case and the object behind section 438 Cr.P.C., which was for the first time introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to save a person from undue harassment and humiliation, the interim order dated 18.12.2019 is made absolute on the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall not change his place of present residence without intimation to the investigating officer, (ii) he shall provide proof of his present residence and Mobile Number to the investigating officer, (iii) he shall observe the instructions/directives issued by the Central Government as well as the Government of Jharkhand for avoiding spread of COVID-19. 9. A.B.A No. 8801 of 2019 is allowed. 10. It is however made clear that on violation of any of the conditions, the trial Judge shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 11. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.