JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. By way of the present petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11199061231168 of 2023 registered with Ankleshwar City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Bharuch. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application are as under. 2.1 As per the FIR, accused No.1 is administrator of Navi Masjid who forged letter granting permission of sale of land bearing Survey No.722, Area 0-52-67 and used the same to prepare a sale deed. Hence, the FIR came to be registered. The incident took place on 17.05.2022 and the FIR has been registered on 22.12.2023 after a delay of 19 months. The name of the petitioners have not been mentioned in the FIR though it has been registered after a detailed inquiry. The only role alleged against the petitioners is that they helped accused No.1 in forging a letter giving approval to sell land bearing Survey No.722, Area 0-52-67. It is the case of the petitioners that they were doing their job in the office. The petitioners preferred anticipatory bail applications being Criminal Misc. Application Nos.43 of 2024 and 81 of 2024 before learned Sessions Court, Ankleshwar and the same came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court, Ankleshwar vide orders dated 12.01.2024 and 25.01.2024, respectively. 3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.I.H.Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr.Aniq Kadri appearing for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr.Manish Shah appearing for the first informant and learned APP appearing for the State. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Saiyed taking this Court through the entire record of the bail application(s) would submit that the present petitioners are not named in the FIR. The petitioners who are working with the office of the Wakf Board are innocent. The role of the present petitioners stated is limited to the extent that they brought an order from the office of the State Wakf Board and handed over to the trustees of the Navi Masjid Trust. The petitioners who are working with the office of the Wakf Board are innocent. The role of the present petitioners stated is limited to the extent that they brought an order from the office of the State Wakf Board and handed over to the trustees of the Navi Masjid Trust. He would further submit that though the order of the Wakf Board dated 10.06.2015 having outward No.3980 of 2015 and outward No.7227 of 2015 are alleged as forged documents, such orders are passed in year 2015 after following the due process laid down in the Wakf Act. He would further submit that even it is not a case of prosecution that no meetings of the concerned office had taken place or it was never decided to auction the property. He would further submit that since there is no allegation of forging the order of the Wakf Board at least by these two persons, the petitioners have prima facie case. He would further submit that the persons who are benefited from the alleged forged order of the Wakf Board have been granted either anticipatory bail or regular bail by the concerned Court and therefore, even principle of parity is attracted. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the alleged forged order is of year 2015 and the FIR came to be filed in recent past in year 2024. The petitioners are made target by concerned CEO Mr.Kumar. He would further submit that on going through the outward register of Gujarat Wakf Board, prima facie it appears that overwriting is made on the particular outward numbers to show that alleged order is forged one. He would further submit that by manipulating the outward number in the register maintained by Wakf Board, prosecution would not prove that order of Wakf Board is forged one and used as genuine one for execution of sale deed or lease deed in contravention of the provision of law. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Saiyed would further submit that trustees of the Wakf Board who have executed sale deed or lease deed have been granted anticipatory bail or regular bail. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since the management of the Gujarat State Wakf Board is changed, the actions are taken in malevolence and ill-will against the petitioners. He would further submit that out of two petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a lady. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since the management of the Gujarat State Wakf Board is changed, the actions are taken in malevolence and ill-will against the petitioners. He would further submit that out of two petitioners, petitioner No.1 is a lady. Both the petitioners are ready and willing to extend their cooperation in the investigating. The petitioners are permanent residents of society and therefore, there is no flight risk. 4.2 Lastly, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since the procedure for selling or leasing of immovable property stated in Wakf Act are completely followed as required meetings have taken place and decision has been taken in those meetings, it can be presumed that alleged orders were passed by the Wakf Board. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the role of petitioners is limited as it is alleged that they have taken up the order and delivered it to the trustees of the concerned Trust. Apart from that, no other role is attributed to the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted to this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. 4.3 Upon above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Saiyed submits to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr.Manish Shah appearing for the Gujarat State Wakf Board opposing this pre-arrest bail application would submit that earlier CEO whose signature is forged on the impugned order alleged to have been issued by the Gujarat State Wakf Board is expired in year 2019. He would further submit that the alleged order of Gujarat State Wakf Board is forged with date in year 2015 purposefully as in Writ Petition (PIL) No.214 of 2016 between Save Wakf Properties Movement vs. State of Gujarat, the Division Bench of this Court passed interim order in terms of paragraph 12(E) of the petition and stayed many orders permitting sale or lease of the Wakf properties in the State of Gujarat, vide order dated 13.10.2016. He would further submit that because of such order from the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners forged the order with date in year 2015 granting permission to sell or lease Wakf properties. He would further submit that it is incorrect to say that during the meeting, the Gujarat Wakf Board has permitted for selling of properties of Navi Masjid. He would further submit that it is incorrect to say that during the meeting, the Gujarat Wakf Board has permitted for selling of properties of Navi Masjid. He would further submit that in view of amendment in Section 51 of the Wakf Act, the sale of the Wakf property is prohibited. On earlier time board has overruled that aspect and meanwhile, the status-quo order came in the PIL. He would further submit that the petitioners who are working with Gujarat State Wakf Board were aware of order in PIL. Thus, to facilitate the sale or lease of the Wakf property, they forged back date orders of Wakf Board and gave to concerned beneficiary. 5.1 He would further submit that before status-quo order in PIL came into force, only permission to conduct auction was granted and no sale permission was ever granted by the Gujarat State Wakf Board. He would submit that petitioners have tried to mislead the Court by referring page 76 which pertains to Juni Masjid having Wakf Registration No.B119 of Bharuch, whereas FIR is filed for immovable property of Juni Masjid having Wakf Registration No.B121. He would further submit that reference to page 76 and 77 would not be helpful for petitioners to submit that the trustees have directly obtained orders from the Gujarat State Wakf Board. Therefore, since there is a prima facie case against the petitioners, no anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners. 5.2 As far as allegations of overwriting in the register is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Shalin Mehta submits that there is no substance in such argument. There is no overwriting in the register. Since outward register is part of Government record, there is no question arise for overwriting in the register. He would place on record the copy of register to show that the outward numbers which are mentioned in forged orders does not match with outward numbers stated in the register. Therefore, he would submit that there is a forged order of Wakf Board and they are being handed over to interested persons at the instance of petitioners and that too after status- quo order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in PIL. Thus, prima facie case is made out and therefore, learned Senior Counsel would submit to dismiss the petitions. 6. Thus, prima facie case is made out and therefore, learned Senior Counsel would submit to dismiss the petitions. 6. Learned APP having taken this Court through the investigation papers would submit that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The statements recorded during the investigating clearly reveals that petitioners have played main crucial role in commission of the offence. They have forged the orders of the Gujarat State Wakf Board permitting to sell or lease Wakf properties and handed over to the interested person and the properties of the Wakf Board have been sold or leased out pursuant to such forged orders despite order of status-quo is operating in the PIL. As far as order permitting sale of the Wakf property is concerned, Gujarat State Wakf Board has never granted such permission but only granted permission to conduct auction of the Wakf property and as far as forged order of Gujarat State Wakf Board to lease the Wakf property is concerned, no procedure ever took place, but back date order was forged to facilitate interested persons, and to help in flouting the orders of the Division Bench of this Court to sell and lease the Wakf properties. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned APP that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the present petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. 7. After hearing of the bail application was concluded, both sides have filed additional affidavit in sur-rejoinder or rejoinder affidavit etc. Learned advocates for both sides have argued the matter again. 7.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Syed reiterating the earlier arguments would submit that false arguments have been canvassed by the learned advocates for the other side. The pages where the outward numbers of the alleged orders are stated to have been noted are missing and it can be discerned from the document annexed with the additional affidavit filed in support to it. He would further submit that there is no fake or forged order. Moreover, he would submit that the role of the present petitioners is limited to deliver the orders to the trustees of Juni Masjid. He would further submit that the CEO Mr. Kumar in malevolence or malice against the present petitioners, has played all the techniques and tactics and suppressed the material fact. The pages where the outward numbers are registered are torn which itself is visible in view of page 42. He would further submit that the CEO Mr. Kumar in malevolence or malice against the present petitioners, has played all the techniques and tactics and suppressed the material fact. The pages where the outward numbers are registered are torn which itself is visible in view of page 42. Thus, submitted that petitioners/accused are wrongly dragged. Upon such submission, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been renewed. 7.2 In reply to the above contentions, learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the Gujarat State Wakf Board would submit that the present petitioners are employees of Gujarat State Wakf Board and they know all the procedure taking place in Gujarat State Wakf Board. He would further submit that pages 281 and 282 of the register which are torned up, were in existence upto 06.09.2023. These two pages are also placed on record before this Court in Special Civil Application No.14646 of 2023 and once those pages were placed before this Court in Special Civil Application, they are torn up. He would further submit that petitioners had repeatedly argued that pages 281 and 282 are not existing are failed to explain that how they came to know about torn up of these pages. This itself fingers point against them. Learned advocate Mr.Shah also referred to affidavit in reply filed by Mr.M.H.Kumar, CEO of Gujarat State Wakf Board dated 05.04.2024 and has pressed into service paras 4 to 7, which are reproduced as under :- “4. So far as the contention raised in Para-2 that Page-74 to 79 of the additional affidavit dated 31.01.2024 written by the trustees to the CEO are pertaining to different survey numbers and not 323, 374 and 44, I say that this submission is itself wrongly understood by the applicant and the stand taken by the board is to the effect that communication at Page-74 to 79 pertains to different Wakfs i.e. B-119, Bharuch whereas, the FIR in question is for Wakf No.B121,Jitali and therefore, it seems that the applicant has not understood the facts in correct prospective. It is submitted that initial process for publishing notice of auction was done together for these two trusts and therefore, all survey numbers are mentioned together in the proceedings of the board but, Page-74 to 79 are communication pursuant to the notice issued by the Wakf Board in the case Wakf No.B-119, Bharuch and not for the Wakf in question and therefore, the applicant is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Court by relying on Page-74 to 79 communication. It is submitted that document produced at Annexure-A-1 seems to be never communicated to the Wakf Board as there were never an occasion to address such letter. It is submitted that in the case of Wakf being B119, show cause notices were addressed pursuant to which, reply was given by the trustees of the said trust but, for the Wakf in question i.e. B-121, never any show cause notice was given and therefore, there was never an occasion for the addressee of Page-4 of the Annexure-A-1 to address such letter to the Wakf Board. Not only that, upon bare reading of the letter at Annexue-A-1, it clearly transpires that it has been prepared later on. None the less, the deponent reserves his right to verify whether, such letter was ever inwarded with the Wakf or not as he is before this Hon'ble Court from the morning with necessary files of the matter and the register of inward is in the lock and key of the office superintendent who is present before this Hon'ble Court from 11:00 A.M. It is also pertinent to mention here that after receipt of this affidavit, they have taken telephone instruction of all the concerned staffs and all of them have said that this signature does not belong to them and therefore, there is one more reason to believe that this letter was never addressed to the Wakf Board and therefore, board denies the receipt of any such communication produced at Annexure-A-1. 5. In so far as the allegations made against the deponent about suppression of material factsabout torn down of the outward register of necessary outward number page and complaint given in this regard to the Gandhinagar Police Station, Sector-7, few dates are relevant as to who is involve in the said proceedings is very necessary to mentioned at this juncture when such point is raised. It is submitted that one Afsanabanu Mohammad rafik Kazi who is applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.2260 of 2024 was working with the Wakf Board from 2002 as daily wager. Thereafter, she was promoted as junior wakf inspector cum typiest on 25.02.2013 and she was further promoted as senior clerk cum inspector on 30.11.2018 and she has gone on leave from 23.12.2023 and thereafter, has not reported in the Wakf Board. It is pertinent to mention here that for Wakf No.B- 119, before filing FIR show cause notice was given on 03.09.2023 which is produced on Page-82 of the Criminal Misc. Application No.2260 of 2024 and notice at Page-86 for the same Wakf was issued. Pursuant to which, two Special Civil Application being Special Civil Application Nos.14601 of 2023 and 14646 of 2023 were filed before this Hon'ble Court wherein, Wakf Board has filed detailed reply after verifying original outward register number on 06.09.2023 at that time, the said applicant - Afsanabanu was daily coming on her duty. It is submitted that there after when second time, old outward register was needed due to letter addressed by the Inspector General of Registrar on 03.10.2023 which is produced on Page-5 of objection filed by the deponent in Criminal Misc. Application No.3122 of 2024, the deponent came to know that the necessary is missing and is torn down from the original register by someone and therefore, Panchnama was drawn in this regard in the presence of office staff copy of which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-1colly to this affidavit. 6. It is submitted that therefore, show cause notices were given to storekeeper and office superintendent on 28.12.2023 which was replied by them on 03.01.2024 and therefore, after considering the reply, complaint came to be filed on 12.01.2024. Thus, while the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.2260 of 2024 was in duty, seems to have torn down the register when she came to know about the filing of affidavit showing original outward number in earlier Special Civil Applications by misutilizing her post. 7. Thus, while the applicant of Criminal Misc. Application No.2260 of 2024 was in duty, seems to have torn down the register when she came to know about the filing of affidavit showing original outward number in earlier Special Civil Applications by misutilizing her post. 7. So far as the contention raised in Paras-4 and 5 that original outward register was to be produced before this Hon'ble Court, I say that it was never called upon by the Hon'ble Court and the only allegation in the additional affidavit was to the effect that some whitener has been used to manipulate the outward register and therefore, the copy from the Masterfile made earlier of the outward register when it was not torn down was shown to the Hon'ble Court and therefore, the allegation made in the additional affidavit filed today, is completely unjust.” 8. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, what appears that the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.214 of 2016 between Save Wakf Properties Movement Gujarat vs. State of Gujarat and others, on 13.10.2016 passed the following order : “Issue NOTICE to the respondents returnable on 24th November, 2016. Till then, there shall be interim relief in terms of para-12(E) of the petition. Direct service permitted.” 9. At this juncture, I may refer to affidavit of objection filed by Mr.M.H.Kumar, CEO of Gujarat State Wakf Board as under : “2. I say that pursuant to the resolution passed in the Board Meeting dated 13/02/2015 and more particularly vide resolution No. 3:A:8 it was decided that though there objections from the CEO of the Board more particularly under section 26 of The Wakf Act, 1995 pointing out that as per the amendment in the Wakf Act more particularly section 51, the sale of the property is prohibited but, at the relevant time Board has overruled the objections raised by the CEO and has directed the Wakf to publish the notice of auction in two daily newspapers as per the format prescribed along with the letter. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R1 is a copy of letter dated 04/05/2015 issued by the Board to the trustee of the Wakf bearing no. B119-Bharuch and present Wakf in question is having registration no. B- 121-Bharuch. 3. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R1 is a copy of letter dated 04/05/2015 issued by the Board to the trustee of the Wakf bearing no. B119-Bharuch and present Wakf in question is having registration no. B- 121-Bharuch. 3. It is submitted that thereafter the Wakf in question issued auction notice and pursuant to which one letter was addressed dated 02/09/2015 informing that the property in question is decided to be given to one person namely Rameshbhai Kadubhai Balar. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R2 is the copy of the said communication to the CEO of the Board. 4. In the meantime, there was an amendment in the Wakf Act more particularly, in sections 51 and 104A of the Wakf Act, 1995 prohibiting transfer of the Wakf property in any form and therefore, after aforesaid process no categorically order was passed by the Board permitting sale of the property or by its Chairman and order produced with the SubRegistrar Office along with sale deed is having false signature of the erstwhile Chairman as well as having false outward number and Board has never passed any such order granting permission to the petitioners for the sale of the property. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R3 is a copy of registered sale deed dated 17/05/2022. 5. It is submitted that along with sale deed order dated 10/06/2015 is produced which has outward no. 3980/2015 which is on internal page 14 and 15 of the sale-deed. It is submitted that upon comparing the outward register from 10/06/2015 to 11/06/2015 there is no such outward no. and the outward no. series starts from 4006 on the said date. Annexed here to and marked as Annexure R4 is the outward register for 10/06/2015 and 11/06/2015. It is further submitted that the outward no. mentioned in the sale permission order also refers to document of some other Wakf granting registration certificate. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R5 Collectively is a copy of outward register showing entry no. 3980 and document issued vide said outward number. 6. It is submitted that in the year 2016, one Public Interest Litigation bearing No.214/2016 was filed by one institution namely the Save Wakf Properties Movement, Gujarat when this Hon’ble Court has also granted order of stay against the sale of properties on 13.10.2016. 3980 and document issued vide said outward number. 6. It is submitted that in the year 2016, one Public Interest Litigation bearing No.214/2016 was filed by one institution namely the Save Wakf Properties Movement, Gujarat when this Hon’ble Court has also granted order of stay against the sale of properties on 13.10.2016. A copy of the order dated 13.10.2016 passed in PIL No.214/2016 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R6 to this reply. 7. It is submitted that after amendment in the Wakf Act, 1995, Board has granted permission in the case of 26 Wakfs for sale whose applications were received prior to amendment. In the list of such Wakfs in cases, where permissions were granted is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R7 to this reply. In that list also, the name of the present petitioners' Wakf is not reflected and therefore also, it is crystal clear that no such permission was granted in the case of present petitioners. 8. It is further submitted that since there was amendment in the Wakf Act, 1995 and few permissions were granted by the erstwhile Board after the amendment, the State Government has informed the Wakf Board to maintain status-quo as well as stay all the transactions with regard to transfer of Wakf properties and also directed to initiate action to take back the properties. Copies of the letters received from the Law Department, Gujarat State & C.W.C dated 23/06/2016 and 08/06/2016 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R8 Collectively to this reply.” 10. What appears after referring the objection that at the earlier point of time, Wakf properties were permitted to auction despite there were objections. In the meantime, there was amendment in Wakf Act and more particularly in Section 51 and Section 104A prohibiting transfer of the property in any form and therefore after aforesaid process, no order can be passed by the Board permitting sale of property or even by its Chairman. The Division Bench in PIL after considering various aspects passed the interim order on 13.10.2016 in terms of para 12(E), as such it closed the doors for selling the Wakf properties. Now if we go through the record what prima facie appears that the order of Gujarat State Wakf Board which are alleged to have been forged are of the year 2015, but they are not executed till recent past. Now if we go through the record what prima facie appears that the order of Gujarat State Wakf Board which are alleged to have been forged are of the year 2015, but they are not executed till recent past. Only in the year 2023 sale deed and lease deed have been executed. There is no explanation from the petitioners that if these orders are genuine why they are kept in dark and they could not see the light despite passing of seven years. It prima facie indicates that orders are forged to by-pass the amendment in the Wakf Act as well as interim orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in PIL. There is no sense or logic in keeping permission for sale or permission granting lease, idle for seven years. Time period, which elapsed in giving effect of these orders itself, pirma facie proves that they are forged and brought on record with oblique purpose and stale motive. 11. The register of Gujarat State Wakf Board produced on record and being register from Government office indicates that the outward numbers mentioned in impugned forged orders are in fact given to some other documents. The outward numbers in forged orders are in fact not matching with register of Gujarat State Wakf Board. Since the register of Guajrat Wakf Board comes from office of Wakf Board prima facie it can be presumed to be genuine. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Saiyed has vociferously tried to impeach credit of the outward register by placing photocopy, but such photocopy does not satisfy as copy of register placed by learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta prima facie rule out allegations of overwriting. Also it is establish that pages of register are torned up. Copies of torned up pages are placed on record of another litigation before this Court. 12. Also it is establish that pages of register are torned up. Copies of torned up pages are placed on record of another litigation before this Court. 12. On perusing the Annexure-R8 (page 55 and 56) along with objection of Gujarat State Wakf Board what appears is that the Legal Department, State of Gujarat by letter dated 23.06.2016 informed the Gujarat State Wakf Board that for total twenty six Wakf properties the Gujarat State Wakf Board has given permission as per the old law and not as per the amendment in the Wakf Act which came into force since 01.11.2023 and therefore, Government directed to keep status-quo, since in view of amendment in Section 51 and 104 of Amendment Act such sale, gift, exchange or mortgage are void ab initio. It is also ordered to take back the Wakf properties. To save action from the operation of Wakf Act and such orders and even the interim orders passed in the PIL, the order impugned alleged to have been forged of the date fall in year 2015 to get the desired result of selling and leasing Wakf property. These transactions are void ab initio in view of amendment in Wakf Act came into force on 01.11.2023. The investigation papers prima facie demonstrate active involvement of the present petitioners in commission of offence. Not only they have forged the orders of the Gujarat State Wakf Board but also delivered them to the concerned persons and these orders are used as genuine before the authority for execution of the sale deed or lease deed. It should not be forgotten that both the petitioners are former employees of Gujarat State Wakf Board and they were fully knowing activities and movements taking place in offence of Gujarat State Wakf Board. 13. Another aspect which is pointed out by learned advocate for the complainant that the pages 281 and 282 of the register which were bearing the outward numbers were torn. These pages were placed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No.14646 of 2023 and thereafter, the same were torn, which could have been used to find out the fact regarding forging of the order of Wakf Board. These pages were placed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No.14646 of 2023 and thereafter, the same were torn, which could have been used to find out the fact regarding forging of the order of Wakf Board. The petitioners being the employees of the Gujarat State Wakf Board were supposed to know about this fact and they are alleged to have committee the offence of forgery and therefore, this aspect would point finger against the petitioners. 14. Role of both the petitioner/accused could be noticed. They both were employees of the Gujarat State Wakf Board. They were in sync with the other accused. It appears that idea to forge the order permitting sale and lease of the Wakf property bares from the mind of the accused, as they were knowing legal development took place, which were closing doors of selling/leasing Wakf property. Dates on forged orders and date of their execution are important to notice. Date on forged orders are of the year 2015, when no specific ban, either by way of provision of law or interim order in PIL was operating. Importantly, this order was used in year 2023. This aspect itself demonstrate the intention and motive. Apt to note that investigation papers envelope vital role of petitioners/accused in commission of the offence. 15. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and therefore, their custodial interrogation is required. It is argued that the trustees of the Trust are given anticipatory or regular bail also principle of parity attracts. The principle of parity would attract between equals. The role of the accused is to be examined against role of the other accused, when principle of parity is pressed into. The orders granting anticipatory bail to the trustees passed by the concerned Sessions Court has noted that the trustees are not involved in forging the document or no such allegations are levelled against them. The allegations levelled against the present petitioners are much higher than the allegations levelled against the trustees. In view of that, the principle of parity would not attract in favour of the petitioners. 16. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. The allegations levelled against the present petitioners are much higher than the allegations levelled against the trustees. In view of that, the principle of parity would not attract in favour of the petitioners. 16. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held as follows: "The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights – safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy". Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation". 17. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 21, observed as under:- “21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 18. In view of the above, the present petitions seeking for anticipatory bail are dismissed. Needless to say that observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of these pre-arrest bail applications, and shall not influence any other proceedings arise from impugned FIRs.