JUDGMENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 438 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A-2 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2020 on the file of CID Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 465 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 2. The Deputy General Manager of the Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (for short “KDCC Bank”) has given a complaint in Pedana Police Station on 10.03.2020 stating that 17 Secured Overdraft Loans were sanctioned at the Pedana Branch of KDCC Bank for a sum of Rs.4.25 crores. During the internal enquiry, it is found that this batch of 17 SOD loans sanctioned from February, 2016 to August, 2016 are full of irregularities from the beginning to the end. In the complaint, various allegations are made against the petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager of the said bank during that period. 3. Heard Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier pre- arrest bail applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court by order dated 08.07.2020 and 20.08.2020 respectively basing on the submissions of Special Public Prosecutor for CID that the investigation is at threshold and as Section 51 enquiry is pending, all the documents are lying with the bank and the respondent police are yet to receive the same from the Bank. She submits that there are changed circumstances from the previous pre-arrest application, since Section 51 enquiry is completed and the investigation is almost completed. She further submits that the crime was registered on 10.03.2020 and nearly 1½ years elapsed, as such the case of petitioner for pre-arrest bail may be considered. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID opposes the application on the ground that investigation is still pending and charge sheet is yet to be filed. 6. The parameters for granting bail are no more res integra as the Hon‟ble Apex court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CID opposes the application on the ground that investigation is still pending and charge sheet is yet to be filed. 6. The parameters for granting bail are no more res integra as the Hon‟ble Apex court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, AIR 2011 SC 312 = MANU/SC/1021/2010 has laid down the following guidelines: 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. Where 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. 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; 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.” 7. Coming to the facts of the case, the crime was registered on 10.03.2020 and it has been almost 1 ½ years and at present the petitioner is not working in the said branch, even Section 51 enquiry is completed, as such at this stage, there cannot be any apprehension to the prosecution that the petitioner may hamper with the investigation and tamper with evidence. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-2 shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2020 on the file of CID Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of Station House Officer, CID Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.