JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed on behalf of petitioners Prem Chand, Yogesh Gupta and Pawan Kumar seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.20, dated 15.9.2022, Police Station Vigilance Bureau Range Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 amended Section of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of one Jaspal Singh, wherein it is alleged that tenders had been floated during the procurement season 2019-2020 for the purpose of labour and cartage charges for transportation of food grains. It is alleged that contractors Rishu Mittal, Prem Chand, Yogesh Gupta, Pawan Kumar, Vishu Mittal tendered their bids by furnishing incorrect particulars of vehicles and that some of the registration numbers furnished by them were infact assigned to two-wheelers. It is alleged that said persons by way of furnishing incorrect particulars had been successful in getting contracts for transportation of food grains and had thus cheated and caused huge loss to various government agencies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged by a private individual, who is inimical towards the petitioners inasmmuch as he had previously lodged another FIR against the petitioners for various offences under Indian Penal Code i.e. FIR No.0077, dated 16.5.2019, Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot, under Sections 452, 341, 323, 148, 149, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-4 in CRM-M-54229-2022). It has further been submitted that there could have been some mistake in furnishing of registration numbers of vehicles as initially all the registration certificates in respect of transport vehicles as mentioned in their tender bid were not available and that the government agencies, in any case, had not suffered any loss as the food grains in question had been transported well in time. 4. 4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case where the petitioners had furnished incorrect information at the time of applying for allotment of contract for labour and cartage charges pertaining to transportation of food grains during the procurement season 2019-2020 and since all the transport vehicles as mentioned in their tender bid were not actually put to use, the complicity of the petitioners is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that the entire food grains had been duly transported by the petitioners with the help of their vehicles. 5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting anything as regards merits of the case and while also bearing in mind that the matter, in any case, based on documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Both the petitions, as such, are accepted and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.