JUDGMENT : RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties-C.B.I. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been preferred by the applicant (Ravi Shankar Pandey) apprehending his arrest in R.C. No. 2(A)/2020 (R.C. No. 0062020A0002/2020), C.C. No. 310/2021, C.B.I. vs. Prakash Chandra Vidhyarthi and Others, under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) R/W 13 (1) (C) and (D) of P.C. Act, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the First Information Report (in short F.I.R.). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant was not named in the F.I.R. dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure No. 1) and he has not committed any offence. The present applicant is serving on the post of Senior Customer Assistant (Level-II), State Bank of India, A.P. Sen Road Branch, Lucknow. The issue is relating to forgery and fraud from the year 2014 to 2017 in respect of Kisan Credit Cards. During investigation it has been found that some fake borrowers have been given benefit of Kisan Credit Card and the documents of those borrowers were found to be forged. The sanctioning authority of the said loan was one Sri K.K. Srivastava, Manager of the Branch whereas the duty attributed to the present applicant was to feed the data. 5. The attention has been drawn towards the appraisal/assessment of such loan which has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit wherein the signatures of the Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava as well as the present applicant have been shown. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during investigation the present applicant has co-operated with the Investigating Authority and has followed the process of law. He always appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when he was called and submitted his explanation in respect of his bona-fide. He has submitted that the applicant was not the sanctioning authority and he was not having any ulterior motive inasmuch as nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the present applicant. 7. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant as well as the then Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava. He has submitted that the applicant was not the sanctioning authority and he was not having any ulterior motive inasmuch as nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the present applicant. 7. The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant as well as the then Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava. Besides, as per learned counsel for the applicant, the investigation is going on against Sri Anshul Mehdi Ratta and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava the then Managers of the State Bank of India and some unknown persons. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is an employee within the category of Level-II. The C.B.I. has never issued any coercive steps against him since lodging of the F.I.R. on 09.01.2020 for the reason that he has co-operated in the investigation. Now, the charge-sheet has been filed. 9. Since he is an employee of State Bank of India, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding and he shall further cooperate with the proceedings. He has further submitted that any reasonable condition may be imposed against him but his liberty may be protected till conclusion of the proceedings. 10. Per contra, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that this is the case wherein the fraud and forgery has been committed by some fake persons with the collusion of some Bank Officers/Officials. The investigation against the present applicant and the then Manager Sri K.K. Srivastava (since retired) has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed but against some other officers of the Bank it is still going on. 11. Sri Singh has however submitted that the present applicant has co-operated with the investigation, therefore, he has not been arrested till filing of the charge-sheet but he is duty bound to appear before the learned trial court to face the trial proceedings. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on the record, I am of the considered opinion that if any employee of the Government/ Corporation/Instrumentality of the Government/any Bank etc. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on the record, I am of the considered opinion that if any employee of the Government/ Corporation/Instrumentality of the Government/any Bank etc. co-operates with the investigation and does not flout the directions of the Investigating Agency and with his/her/their co-operation the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed, his/her/their arrest may not be warranted only for the reason that the charge-sheet has been filed unless the learned trial court is having any cogent reason to take him/her/them into custody. 13. In the judgment of Apex Court rendered in re: Joginder Kumar vs. State of Utter Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 260 wherein it has been observed that arrest is not mandatory if an accused person co-operates with the investigation as well as in the trial proceedings unless there is any specific or cogent reason to arrest him. The issuance of direction regarding arrest is the prerogative of the learned trial court concerned but such discretion should not be unreasoned inasmuch as the liberty of any person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, may not be compromised in a cursory manner. Therefore, before issuing such order to arrest such person the settled proposition of law and the parameters so fixed by the Apex Court should be considered. 14. The Apex Court in re: Siddharth vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 676 has observed as under: “We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give out imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in fact, some across cases where the accused has co-operated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the charge-sheet.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court in re: Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2021 has observed as under: “Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C. the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitled him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the present case, what has been demonstrated in the material available on record that initially in the F.I.R. the present applicant was not named as no allegation was levelled against him. He is a Bank employee of Clerical Job (which comes within the category of Level-II) who has co-operated with the investigation properly and thereafter the charge-sheet has been filed. 17. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is giving undertaking that he shall appear before the learned court below/trial court and shall face the trial proceedings. He shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall not adopt any delayed tactics. 18. 17. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is giving undertaking that he shall appear before the learned court below/trial court and shall face the trial proceedings. He shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments and shall not adopt any delayed tactics. 18. It is made clear that at any time if the learned trial court finds it necessary for any cogent and obvious reason that custody of the present applicant would be warranted in the interest of justice, he can pass such order but that order should not be passed in a mechanical exercise and the directions so given by the Apex Court in re: Joginder Kumar (supra), Siddharth (supra) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) shall be abide by being the law of the land. 19. Since this case has been investigated by the C.B.I. and a regular presence of the applicant would be required by the learned trial court, therefore, I find it appropriate in the interest of justice that if the present applicant is having any pass-port, the same shall be surrendered by him before the learned trial court and such pass-port shall be kept by the learned trial court till conclusion of the trial and may be handed over to the present applicant earlier only after any order having been passed by the learned trial court or by the Superior Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online SC 98, I find it appropriate that liberty of the present applicant may be protected till conclusion of trial proceedings subject to the following conditions. 21. Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant, Ravi Shankar Pandey, shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number, till conclusion of trial proceedings on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/court concerned with the following conditions: 1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation made by a police officer as and when required. 2. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/court concerned with the following conditions: 1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation made by a police officer as and when required. 2. that the applicant 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 his from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 3. that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court. 4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 5. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted. 6. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail. 7. that in case the charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. 8. that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. 22. In view of the aforesaid terms, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.