JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Instant petition has been preferred seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in favour of petitioner in case FIR Crime No.RC0962019A0002 of 2019 registered in SPE Branch CBI, ACB, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 120-B alongwith Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Petitioner had joined Allahabad Bank as a Probationer Officer. Thereafter he was promoted as a Manager and as of now he is serving as a Senior Manager in Allahabad Bank (now known as Indian Bank) Hamirpur. In present case, opening of accounts of ASA Marketing Solutions and large number of students, during posting of the petitioner in Branches of Allahabad Bank at Panchkula, Solan and Chandigarh is the fact for considering him as an accused in scholarship scam. 3. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest, during ongoing investigation by CBI being carried out with respect to as many as 26 Institutions, regarding scholarship scams because during his posting at Solan, Chandigarh and Panchkula w.e.f. July 2011 to June 2018, main accused Rajdeep Singh, Krishan Kumar and Babita Rajta had opened accounts of their Partnership Firm ASA Marketing Solutions and also of large number of students and the petitioner is the officer, who is being considered an instrumental to the ill-design of main accused to swallow huge amount of scholarship for which students were entitled. 4. Status report stands filed, wherein it is stated that petitioner remained posted from July 2011 to July- August 2014 in Panchkula Branch, from July-August 2014 to May 2015 in Chandigarh Branch, June 2015 to May-June 2017 in Solan Branch and June 2017 to June 2018 in Panchkula Branch of Allahabad Bank, now known as Indian Bank and during his posting at Panchkula he had opened bank account of Partnership Firm ASA Marketing Solutions and 28 bank accounts of students out of total 135 bank accounts of students in the said Branch claimed to be students by aforesaid three partners (main accused) in their so called institutions whereas, according to investigation carried out till date, all these institutions were fake having no sanction, approval or affiliation of any competent authority as required under law to run such institutions. As per Investigating Agency signatures of petitioner on account opening forms not only by Smt. Sapna posted as a Clerk in Allahabad Bank but have also been identified by the petitioner himself. 5. It is also case of the prosecution that during his posting at Solan, out of 186 account numbers of students opened in that Branch, 116 accounts were opened by the petitioner and he had also transferred scholarship amount, received in accounts of students at Panchkula to the accounts of ASA Marketing Solutions opened at Solan Branch by him on the basis of a letter of Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar without any authorization from the students but on the basis of so called authority letters alleged to have been issued by the students which was without any date, with no amount mention and without any Branch name of the Bank with which these accounts were opened. According to prosecution, on transfer of petitioner from Panchkula to Solan, main accused Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar with the help of petitioner had opened a new account in the same bank, i.e. in Solan Branch. It is also reported that during his posting at Chandigarh, petitioner had opened account of four students in that Branch also, and ASA Marketing Solutions was already having account in that Branch. According to prosecution, accounts of the students at Panchkula, Solan and Chandigarh were opened without consent and knowledge of the students, in their absence, but on the basis of documents supplied by Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar, but without verifying the students in person by visiting their institutions or otherwise. 6. According to prosecution, scholarship amount received in accounts of students from the Government was transferred to accounts of ASA Marketing Solutions by petitioner without any enforceable debit authority and without verification of the account holders, their willingness and their identity. 7. Detail of amount, as per status report and record of Investigating Agency, so transferred is as under:- Sr. No. Amount transferred To Account Number Name of Transferee Account holder Date of transfer Amount in Rs. 1. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,91,200/- 2. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,33,700/- 3. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 20,66,000/- 4. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 2,47,600/- 5. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,12,800/- 6. 1. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,91,200/- 2. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,33,700/- 3. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 20,66,000/- 4. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 2,47,600/- 5. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 15,12,800/- 6. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 19.12.2013 14,97,300/- 7. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 03.04.2014 Rs.14,91,900/- 8. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 03.04.2014 Rs.30,44,000/- 9. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 01.11.2017 1,07,480/- 10. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 01.11.2017 1,32,480/- 11. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 01.11.2017 1,76,640/- 12. Various students bank accounts 50168257330 ASA Marketing Solutions 01.11.2017 1,81,770/- 8. It is also claim of the prosecution that for act and conduct of the petitioner, he has been found actively associated with main accused Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar as it has also come in the knowledge during investigation from the account statements of Bank account of ASA Marketing Solutions, Solan, that a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- is stated to have been received by the petitioner on the basis of self cheque issued by main accused Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar. 9. Learned counsel for respondent-CBI has submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to elucidate truth and further information from the petitioner regarding any other amount received by him or on behalf of main accused Rajdeep Singh, Krishan Kumar and Babita Rajta and, therefore, he has over vehemently pressed for rejection of bail enabling the Investigating Agency to have custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 10. It is also case of the Investigating Agency that statements of Bank employees, who were serving at relevant point of time, in the Branches of the Bank where petitioner was posted during 2011 to 2018 have also been recorded, wherein witnesses have revealed that petitioner had opened the accounts of ASA Marketing Solutions and accounts of large number of students in their absence and without verifying the facts during his respective tenure in above referred stations. 11. It is also case of the prosecution that there was no reason or logic in opening the accounts of students purported to be studying in Chamba, Una, Kangra and Nahan, at Panchkula, Solan and Chandigarh. 11. It is also case of the prosecution that there was no reason or logic in opening the accounts of students purported to be studying in Chamba, Una, Kangra and Nahan, at Panchkula, Solan and Chandigarh. Prosecution has also produced large number of Account Opening Forms taken into possession from Solan, Panchkula and Chandigarh Branches and on the basis of these forms, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-CBI that forms are incomplete in so many respects and no local addresses of students of Panchkula or Solan or Chandigarh have been mentioned therein. Further that authorization letters attached with these forms have been prepared before opening of the accounts and some of these authorization letters are having a date which is prior in time to the date of opening of the account, whereas in some others column of date is blank. He has also pointed out certain authorization letters, wherein even name of the bank has been mentioned, but without mention of Branch and in none of these authorization letters account numbers of account holders have been mentioned. It is further pointed that petitioner, while serving at Solan, was having no authority or authorization to transfer amount from accounts of students opened at Panchkula to the account of firm of main accused opened at Solan as the authorization letter enclosed with those Account Opening Forms were not only without mention of account number, but also addressed to the Senior Manager Allahabad Bank, Panchkula. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has also referred material communication including that for Bank accounts starting with digit “59” record maker and checker are not found in the system. He has further pointed that most of the account numbers opened at Panchkula are starting with digit “59” and, therefore, he claims that petitioner has opened accounts by, bye-passing system and without following proper procedure, only to facilitate main accused to commit scam of crores of rupees, the amount for which, in fact, was to be disbursed to the students. 13. To substantiate plea for rejection of petition, learned counsel for respondent-CBI has put reliance upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Constitutional Bench); State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji, (1987) 2 SCC 364 ; State Represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 ; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Constitutional Bench); State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji, (1987) 2 SCC 364 ; State Represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 ; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (DB), (2011) 1 SCC 694 ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI (DB), (2013) 7 SCC 439 ; Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (DB), (2013) 7 SCC 466 ; State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (DB), (2017) 13 SCC 751 ; Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 (3 Judges); Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 165 (3 Judges); Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 895 of 2018, titled as Ankit vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and other connected petitions; and Cr.M.P. No. 944 of 2020, titled as Freed vs. State of H.P. alongwith other connected petitions. 14. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that during posting of the petitioner at Panchkula, he as not Incharge of the Branch, but Anu Bhargav and A.K. Verma respectively were posted as Assistant General Managers in these respective stations, who were Incharge of the respective Branches and at Panchkula petitioner had opened account of students after receiving directions from Assistant General Managers and further that a Firm or a person can open the account anywhere in India on the basis of KYC (Know Your Customer) and at the time of opening of account of ASA Marketing Solutions, they had produced copies of Partnership Deed, Aadhar Card, Passport, Pan Card etc. alongwith Account Opening Form and, therefore, no illegality or criminality has been committed by the petitioner in opening the account of ASA Marketing Solutions. Further that students were also having right to open their account anywhere wherever they like and the accounts opened by the petitioner either at Panchkula or Solan or Chandigarh, were duly proposed and identified by the Institutions and at the time of opening large number of accounts of Institutions, verification/recommendation of such Institutions is considered to be sufficient for opening accounts. It is also submitted that once authority letter authorizing the Bank to transfer the fee of respective students in favour of Educational Institution or Society/Organization running such Institute is given by the student, the Institute is entitled for recovery of fee through bank from accounts of students as authorized by the students themselves. 15. It is also submitted that once authority letter authorizing the Bank to transfer the fee of respective students in favour of Educational Institution or Society/Organization running such Institute is given by the student, the Institute is entitled for recovery of fee through bank from accounts of students as authorized by the students themselves. 15. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that now statements of witnesses have been recorded and record of the bank has been collected and petitioner has been interrogated after passing of order dated 16.02.2021 by this Court, granting interim bail as petitioner has continuously and regularly joined investigation and cooperated the Investigating Officer which is also evident from the status report, wherein no such allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, no prayer for custodial interrogation has been set out in the status report filed on behalf of the respondent-CBI in the present case. It is also contended that petitioner has subjected him for investigation and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice and he is permanent employee of the Bank, serving on a higher post i.e. Senior Manager and, thus, there is no possibility of his absconding as he has roots and enjoying good status in the society. Further that there is no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, pointed out for establishing his connivance/conspiracy with main accused for commission of alleged offence, are nothing but mere irregularities committed by the petitioner in good faith. 16. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is difference between irregularity, illegality or criminality and for alleging criminality degree of veracity of evidence required is higher than in case of irregularity or illegality and for absence of any criminality, petitioner cannot be sated to have committed the offence as alleged. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, at the most, petitioner is a witness to the opening of accounts by main accused either of ASA Marketing Solutions or of students. 17. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, at the most, petitioner is a witness to the opening of accounts by main accused either of ASA Marketing Solutions or of students. 17. With respect to payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as recorded in the account statements, to have been released in favour of petitioner, it was stated that it was a self drawn cheque which was duly signed by Rajdeep Singh and Krishan Kumar on its front as well as back side and petitioner had only acted as a passing officer and there is no signature or any other document so as to connect the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- with petitioner and stray entry made in account statements, without any material or evidence on record, cannot be made basis for drawing conclusion of connivance of the petitioner with main accused. 18. History and object of incorporation of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., and also factors and principles to be taken into consideration at the time of considering bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been discussed in detail in judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P.(M) No.944 of 2020, titled as Freed vs. State of H.P. 19. Provisions related to information to the Police and their powers to investigate have been incorporated in Sections 154 to 176 contained in Chapter-XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). 20. Section 156 Cr.P.C. empowers Police Officer to investigate in cognizable offences without order of the Magistrate and Section 157 prescribes procedure for investigation, which also provides that when an Officer Incharge of a Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156, he, after sending a report to the Magistrate, shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate Officers as prescribed in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. 21. 21. Chapter V of the Cr.P.C. deals with provisions related to arrest of persons, wherein Section 41 also, inter alia, provides that any Police Officer may, without an order from Magistrate, and without a warrant, arrest any person against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment which may be less than seven years or may extend to seven years, subject to condition that he has reason to believe, on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion, that such person has committed the said offence and also if the Police Officer is satisfied of either of the conditions provided under Section 41(1)(b)(ii), which also include that if such arrest is necessary “for proper investigation of the offence”. Whereas Section 41(1)(ba) empowers the Police Officer to make such arrest of a person against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years or with death sentence and the Police Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of that information, that such person has committed the said offence, and for commission of such offence no further condition is required to be satisfied by the Police Officer. Therefore, Police Officer/Investigating Officer is empowered to arrest the offender or the suspect for proper investigation of the offence as provided under Section 41 read with Section 157 Cr.P.C. 22. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during investigation, as discussed supra, is duly prescribed in Cr.P.C. 23. At the same time, Cr.P.C. also contains Chapter XXXIII, providing provision as to bail and bonds, which empowers the Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court to grant bail to a person arrested by the Police/Investigating Officer in accordance with provisions contained in this Chapter. This Chapter also contains Section 438 empowering the Court to issue directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending his arrest. Normally, such bail is called as “Anticipatory Bail”. Scope and ambit of law on Anticipatory Bail has been elucidated by the Courts time and again. 24. This Chapter also contains Section 438 empowering the Court to issue directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending his arrest. Normally, such bail is called as “Anticipatory Bail”. Scope and ambit of law on Anticipatory Bail has been elucidated by the Courts time and again. 24. Initially, provision for granting Anticipatory Bail by the court was not in the Cr.P.C., but on the recommendation of the Law commission of India in its 41st Report, the Commission had pointed out necessity for introducing a set provision in the Cr.P.C. enabling the High Court and Court of Session to grant Anticipatory Bail, mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. It was also observed by the Commission that with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency was showing signs and steady increase and further that where there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty, while on bail, there seems no justification to require him to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. On the basis of these recommendations, provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. was included in Cr.P.C. as an antidote for preventing arrest and detention in false case. Therefore, interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in larger public interest, has been done by the Courts by reading it with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to keep arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on personal liberty at bay. The essence of mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the basic concept of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 25. Section 438 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court either to reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail, at the first instance, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the factors stated in sub-section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in case of issuance of an interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail the application shall be finally heard by the Court after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Police/ Prosecution. Section 438 Cr.P.C. prescribes certain factors which are to be considered at the time of passing interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail amongst others, but no such factors have been prescribed for taking into consideration at the time of final hearing of the case. Undoubtedly, those factors which are necessary to be considered at the time of granting interim bail are also relevant for considering the bail application at final stage. 26. A balance has to be maintained between the right of personal liberty and the right of Investigating Agency to investigate and to arrest an offender for the purpose of investigation, keeping view various parameters as elucidated by the court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal & others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2018) 7 SCC 731 cases and also in other pronouncements referred by learned counsel for CBI. 27. The Legislature, in order to protect right of the Investigating Agency and to avoid interference of the Court at the stage of investigation, has deliberately provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C. that High Court and the Court of Session are empowered to issue direction that in the event of arrest, an offender or a suspect shall be released on bail. The Court has no power to issue direction to the Investigating Agency not to arrest an offender. A direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is issued by the Court, in anticipation of arrest, to release the offender after such arrest. It is an extraordinary provision empowering the Court to issue direction to protect an offender from detection. Therefore, this power should be exercised by the Court wherever necessary and not for those who are not entitled for such intervention of the Court at the stage of investigation, for nature and gravity of accusation, their antecedents or their conduct disentitling them from favour of Court for such protection. 28. Where right to investigate, and to arrest and detain an accused during investigation, is provided under Cr.P.C., there are provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty as well as against arrest and detention in certain cases. It is well settled that interference by the Court at the investigation stage, in normal course, is not warranted. It is well settled that interference by the Court at the investigation stage, in normal course, is not warranted. However, as discussed supra, Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an exception to general principle and at the time of exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C., balance between right of Investigating Agency and life and liberty of a person has to be maintained by the Courts, in the light of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, but also keeping in mind interference by the Court directing the Investigating Officer not to arrest an accused amounts to interference in the investigation. 29. Though bail is rule and jail is exception. However, at the same time, it is also true that even in absence of necessity of custodial interrogation also, an accused may not be entitled for anticipatory bail in all eventualities. Based on other relevant factors, parameters and principles enumerated and propounded by Courts in various pronouncements, some of which have also been referred by learned counsel for CBI, anticipatory bail may be denied to an accused. Requirement of custodial interrogation is not only reason for rejecting bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 30. Nature and gravity of offence, extent of involvement of petitioners, manner of commission of offence, antecedents of petitioners, possibility of petitioners fleeing from justice and impact of granting or rejecting the bail on society as well as petitioner, are also amongst those several relevant factors which may compel the Court to reject or accept the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is not possible to visualize all factors and enlist them as every case is to be decided in its peculiar facts and circumstances. 31. In present case, Officer present in Court had submitted that records from three Banks have been taken into possession during investigation and petitioner has been interrogated and statements of witnesses, including statement of the petitioner, recorded during investigation, have also been produced in the Court. 32. It is also a fact, noticed during hearing of the petition, that there are other several accounts of students, which were not opened by the petitioner but through/by other Officer(s) but none of them have been treated as accused and only petitioner has been implicated as an accused. 32. It is also a fact, noticed during hearing of the petition, that there are other several accounts of students, which were not opened by the petitioner but through/by other Officer(s) but none of them have been treated as accused and only petitioner has been implicated as an accused. It is yet to be assessed as to whether petitioner is an accused or an easy prey of conspirators for having acquaintance with them or otherwise. 33. Petitioner is serving as a Senior Manager in the Bank and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. It is also stated, which is not disputed, that after 3rd March, 2021, petitioner was never called for interrogation and, therefore, has not been associated in investigation thereafter. Statements of witnesses belonging to the Banks have been recorded and relevant documents have been taken in custody by the Investigating Agency and there is nothing on record so as to construe that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required at this stage. 34. It is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that co-accused, main conspirator in the case, Babita Rajta has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.3.2021, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.369 of 2021 and, therefore, right of petitioner for enlarging him on bail, on the ground of parity, has also been pressed. Co accused, may be main accused, Babita Rajta has been enlarged on bail in a petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as she was in judicial custody. There may not be any relation with the parameters taken into consideration for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the parameters relevant for considering bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There may be common factors but the factors are always not the same. However, in absence of established necessity of custodial interrogation, it may be relevant to some extent sometimes but not always. 35. Considering the cumulative effect of entire circumstances of present case and relevant factors and parameters, referred supra, I find that balance of convenience lies in favour of granting bail to the petitioner. 36. However, in absence of established necessity of custodial interrogation, it may be relevant to some extent sometimes but not always. 35. Considering the cumulative effect of entire circumstances of present case and relevant factors and parameters, referred supra, I find that balance of convenience lies in favour of granting bail to the petitioner. 36. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) with two sureties, each in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Special Judge, within two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions and upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court/Special Judge: (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to nay police office or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) That the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial. (iv) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected. (v) That the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. (vi) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail. (vii) That in case petitioner indulges in repetition of similar offence(s) then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution. (viii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission. (ix) That the petitioner shall inform the Police/ Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future. 37. (viii) That the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission. (ix) That the petitioner shall inform the Police/ Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future. 37. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and, thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 38. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to the cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. 39. Trial Court/Special Judge is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc.Insutructions/93-IV.7139, dated 18.3.2013. 40. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the present bail application. 41. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 42. Copy dasti. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy.