Judgment Sanjay Dhar, J.—Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest in case FIR No. 10/2014 for offences under Sections 419/420/423/465/468/471/120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one S. Gurbachan Singh alleging therein that he was lawful attorney holder of one Balwinder Kour, who was in peaceful possession of land measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas at village Chowadhi, Tehsil and District Jammu. It was further alleged that in the year 2008, when aforesaid Balwinder Kour was abroad, some person, taking advantage of her absence, executed a fake sale deed in favour of one Kanav Sharma by impersonating the complainant before the Court of learned Sub-Registrar, Jammu. The complainant further goes on to state that it was in the year 2012, when he came to know about the fact that a sale deed had been executed in favour of aforesaid Kanav Sharma by some person by impersonation. 3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the Crime Branch, Jammu initiated preliminary enquiry and during the course of enquiry, it was found that a sale deed had been executed in respect of the land in question in favour of one Kanav Sharma in the year 2008 and accused Vijay Kumar acted as an identifying witness before the Court of learned Sub-Registrar, Jammu at the time of execution of the sale deed, whereas Shabir Ahmed, the then concerned Patwari had issued the Fard Intikhab in respect of land in question. It was also revealed during the enquiry that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner Jasbir Singh by impersonating the complainant before the Court of learned Sub-Registrar Jammu in connivance with Harpal Singh and Vijay Kumar. Thus, by acting fraudulently and with mala-fide intentions, a fake sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of aforesaid Kanav Sharma by committing impersonation. Accordingly, subject FIR came to be registered and investigation of the case was set into motion. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 419/420/423/465/468/471/120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of P.C. Act have been found established against the accused including the petitioner herein. 4. Accordingly, subject FIR came to be registered and investigation of the case was set into motion. After investigation of the case, offences under Sections 419/420/423/465/468/471/120-B RPC read with Section 5(2) of P.C. Act have been found established against the accused including the petitioner herein. 4. The petitioner has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in the subject FIR; that he is not alleged to have committed any offence which is punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life, as such, rigor of Sub-section (1) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the case of the petitioner; that he is the only bread earner of his family and if he is not admitted to bail, he is bound to suffer irreparably; that he is a senior citizen and suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure and that he is ready to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail. 5. The application has been resisted by the respondent by filing its reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is involved in a very grave offence, inasmuch as he has committed impersonation and fraud; that the applications for grant of anticipatory bail have already been rejected by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu and by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption cases, Jammu keeping in view the seriousness and gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner; that the investigation of the case is at the initial stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for recovery of the money which he had received from Kanav Sharma in consideration of execution of fake sale deed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. So far as the principles for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest are concerned, the same have been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and ors vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565. 7. So far as the principles for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest are concerned, the same have been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and ors vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565. The Court has, while observing that the question, whether to grant bail or not, depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict, held as under: “In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of the public or the state” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail”. 8. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694 has, while observing that no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, held that the following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: “(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail”. 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the record reveals that the petitioner had approached Court of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu as well as the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu for grant of anticipatory bail, however, he failed to obtain a favourable order from both the Courts below. The main thing which has weighed with both the Courts below, while rejecting the bail applications of the petitioner, is that the recovery of amount of consideration stated to have been received by the petitioner for executing the sale deed in favour of Kanav Sharma is yet to be effected and that, if the petitioner is admitted to bail, it will not be possible for the investigating agency to recover the said amount. 10. As already noted while narrating the facts of the case, FIR in the instant has been registered in the year 2014 and now, we are six years down the line. 10. As already noted while narrating the facts of the case, FIR in the instant has been registered in the year 2014 and now, we are six years down the line. For all these six years, the investigating agency has not made any attempt to arrest the petitioner and even, when both the Courts below rejected the applications of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail, the investigating agency seems to have taken no steps to effect the arrest of the petitioner. At least, this is what is coming forth from the reply filed by the respondent in which it has been nowhere stated that any attempt was made by the police to arrest the petitioner or that, their attempts to do so have failed on account of the conduct of the petitioner. In fact, the reply filed by the respondent reveals that the investigation agency has taken the specimen signatures of the petitioner and they have received the FSL report in respect of the same. The fact that the petitioner, during the course of the investigation, reported before the investigating agency to give his specimen signatures clearly shows that he has been cooperating with the investigating agency during the last more than six years and for this reason only, the investigating agency has not felt the need to arrest the petitioner. 11. So far as the observations of both the Courts below that in case the amount of sale consideration is not recovered from the petitioner by subjecting him to custodial interrogation, the investigation will be hampered is concerned, the same appears to be misconceived. This is so because in the sale deed itself, it must have been recorded as to how much amount of sale consideration has been received by the petitioner from aforesaid Kanav Sharma. Once, it is established that the petitioner had executed the sale deed by impersonation, a necessary consequence thereof is that he has received the amount of sale consideration. No more evidence is required to be collected in this regard. Thus, subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of sale consideration in order to collect material against him may be a superfluous exercise. 12. No more evidence is required to be collected in this regard. Thus, subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of sale consideration in order to collect material against him may be a superfluous exercise. 12. In view of the above, I do not find that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the instant case is necessary and even otherwise, the circumstances emanating from the material on record clearly shows that the petitioner has all along cooperated with the investigating agency after the registration of the case in the year 2014 and for this reason, it appears that the need for arrest of the petitioner has not been felt by the investigating agency despite his application for grant of anticipatory bail having been dismissed by the Courts below. From these circumstances, it is clear that there is remote possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice in case he is admitted to bail. 13. For the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in the subject FIR, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) That he shall execute personal bond with one surety in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O. (ii) That he shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) That he shall not leave the limits of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the permission of the concerned I.O. (iv) That in case he fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the concession of bail shall stand withdrawn.