ORDER : T Mallikarjuna Rao, J. 1. The petitioner/A.2 has filed the Criminal Petition by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, " BNS S ') seeking pre-arrest bail in case of his arrest concerning Crime No.135 of 2024, (relating to Accidental Fire) U/head altered to Section 326 (g), 316(5) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘ BNS ’) and section 4 of PDPP Act, 1984 of Madanapalli I Town Police Station, Annamayya District, now CID, RO, Tirupati. 2. The prosecution's case, as outlined in the complaint, in summary, is as follows: (i) On 21.07.2024, at approximately 11:25 PM, an accidental fire occurred in the Eastern section of the Sub-Collector’s Office, Madanapalle. Sri B. Ramanaiah (Village Revenue Assistant), the night watchman, at about 11:25 PM, noticed flames and attempted to control the fire, but it spread uncontrollably. At 11:42 PM, he informed Smt. G. Thapaswini, Deputy Tahsildar of Nimmanapalle Mandal, informed the Camp Clerk of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle. The Camp Clerk subsequently notified the Station Fire Officer, Madanapalle, and the complainant. Despite efforts to extinguish the flames and retrieve office files and computers, it was unsuccessful due to the intensity of the fire. The complainant then informed the Electricity Department, which promptly disconnected the power supply to prevent further spreading. (ii) The complainant also notified the Collector & District Magistrate of Annamayya District, who called him by phone. By 12:45 AM, an additional fire tender arrived, and the fire was brought under control. Upon inspection, several items were found to be destroyed, including computer systems, monitors, a Xerox machine, printers, and scanners. Additionally, the following essential files were completely burned: 1. G. Gowtham Thej, Sr. Asst. – Alienation, Section 22-A, Dotted Lands, Assignment Freeholds 2. J. Yatheesha, Jr. Asst. – RTI Act, 2005 3. G. Shilpa, Sr. Asst. – Assignments, Assignment Appeals, Files related to Mudivedu Balancing Reservoir R&R 4. G. Aslam Basha, Election Dy. Tahsildar – Election Files, Files related to Horsley Hills Township Committee, Writ Petition, and his personal service record (iii) The District Fire Officer confirmed that the fire was under control, with no injuries or fatalities. The investigating officer sent the burnt materials to CFSL, Hyderabad, for analysis to determine the cause, including potential electrical faults or flammable substances. Tahsildar – Election Files, Files related to Horsley Hills Township Committee, Writ Petition, and his personal service record (iii) The District Fire Officer confirmed that the fire was under control, with no injuries or fatalities. The investigating officer sent the burnt materials to CFSL, Hyderabad, for analysis to determine the cause, including potential electrical faults or flammable substances. Letters were also sent to the Collector of Annamayya District for information on land transactions related to freehold rights, dotted lands, and lands under Section 22A of the Registration Act. (iv) Dr. V.B. Rajkamal, Additional Superintendent of Police (Admin), took over the investigation and recorded statements from LW1 to LW64. Based on the CDRs, searches led to the seizure of documents. During the investigation, it was found that T.Gowtham Tej forged the Revenue Divisional Officer's signature on Section 22-A files, resulting in criminal cases under Sections 465 and 468 IPC at Madanapalle I Town police station. The case was then handed to the Crime Investigation Department, with Sri D. Viswanath, DSP, C.I.D., Nellore, leading the investigation. 3. I have heard Sri O. Kailashanatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the Respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel on sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and complaint. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that: (a) The petitioner was the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.) of Madanapalle, Chittoor (Annamayya) District from 2022 until 05.02.2024. Following this, he worked as the Special Deputy Collector, Legal Cell, Tirupati, until his suspension by G.O.Rt.No.526, dated 29.07.2024, which the petitioner claims was issued without any basis on that date. He had left the R.D.O. post on 05.02.2024 and was unaware of the Madanapalle M.R.O.'s activities, particularly before the fire accident. Since the incident, the petitioner has been called for inquiries by the I Town Police, who questioned him about his previous role and the forgery of his signatures on official files. The petitioner has cooperated fully with the investigation. (b) The petitioner further asserts that the case was transferred to the C.I.D. of Tirupati/Nellore, where the petitioner has attended inquiries and provided all necessary information. Additionally, the petitioner filed a report regarding the forged signatures by senior assistant Goutham Thej, leading to a case being registered against him. The petitioner has cooperated fully with the investigation. (b) The petitioner further asserts that the case was transferred to the C.I.D. of Tirupati/Nellore, where the petitioner has attended inquiries and provided all necessary information. Additionally, the petitioner filed a report regarding the forged signatures by senior assistant Goutham Thej, leading to a case being registered against him. Another complaint by the current R.D.O. also resulted in a similar case. Though the petitioner was examined as a witness, he understands that he might be prematurely implicated as a suspect based on the observations in the G.O. Goutham Thej, the primary suspect, has been arrested and remanded under relevant sections of the law. The petitioner fears that, in the event of his arrest, it will cause irreparable damage, as he is nearing retirement and suffers from a cardiac condition that requires ongoing treatment. Throughout his service, he had clear and unblemished records of service without any stigma. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that he will cooperate with the law, attend any necessary investigations, and is willing to comply with any conditions this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to impose. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the application, asserting that, based on the petitioner's instructions, the individual named Gautam had carried out the actions in question. An inquiry was conducted by the Special Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Lands), which substantiated the allegations against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide G.O.R.T.No.526, dated 29.07.2024, until further orders. The prosecution, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the criminal petition. 7. In Mahipal V. Rajesh , [ (2020) 2 SCC 118 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is necessary for the court while considering a bail application, to assess whether, based on the evidentiary record, prima facie or reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused had committed the crime. 8. In Rakesh Baban Borhade V. State of Maharashtra and another , [2015 SAR (Criminal) 156] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”. 9. 8. In Rakesh Baban Borhade V. State of Maharashtra and another , [2015 SAR (Criminal) 156] the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that; “Anticipatory bail not to be granted as a matter of rule but should be granted only when a case is made out and the Court is convinced that the accused would not misuse his liberty”. 9. In Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others V. State of Punjab , [(1980( 2 Supreme Court Cases 565] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict”. 10. In Siddharam Satrlingappa Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra and others , [(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus; “Discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should also be exercised with caution and prudence.” 11. The incident initially appeared to be a case of accidental fire that occurred on 21.07.2024 at 11:25 PM. However, it was reported to the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, on 22.07.2024 at 08:00 AM. The investigation reveals that the investigating officer proceeded based on the Call Data Records (CDRs) of the suspected individuals, and searches were conducted at the houses of the suspects, resulting in the seizure of certain documents. 12. The petitioner served as the R.D.O. (Revenue Divisional Officer) in Madanapalle from October 2022 until 05.02.2024. The petitioner contends that he left the post of R.D.O. on 05.02.2024 and was no longer involved in the functioning of the M.R.O. (Mandal Revenue Officer) office in Madanapalle thereafter. The prosecution alleges, however, that the petitioner visited Madanapalle approximately six hours before the fire incident and interacted with the senior assistant, Mr Gowtham. 13. During the investigation, the petitioner’s statement was recorded as LW.65. He admitted to being present on 21.07.2024 but attempted to clarify the reason for his visit. According to the prosecution, witness testimonies gathered during the investigation indicate that while the petitioner served as R.D.O., A.3 and A.4 frequently visited the R.D.O. office to discuss issues related to prohibited lands. To bolster this claim, the prosecution places reliance on the confessional statement of A.1. 14. According to the prosecution, witness testimonies gathered during the investigation indicate that while the petitioner served as R.D.O., A.3 and A.4 frequently visited the R.D.O. office to discuss issues related to prohibited lands. To bolster this claim, the prosecution places reliance on the confessional statement of A.1. 14. The investigation further exposes the petitioner's involvement in the regularization of approximately 14,000 acres of prohibited lands during his tenure as R.D.O. It prompted the government to suspend the petitioner and ordered the re-verification of the irregularities. Following an inquiry and review of the report, it was noticed that the total freehold land amounted to 48,360.1255 acres, as per the directives issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.596, dated 23.12.2023. A staggering 22,523.5031 acres were freeholded illegally, flouting the explicit procedural guidelines outlined in the G.O. mentioned above during the petitioner's tenure. 15. In response, the Sub-Collector of Madanapalle reported that lands in Valasapalli, identified in Survey Numbers 558/1, 558/1A, 558/8, 558/10, and 558/11, were deleted from Section 22(A) by Senior Assistant Mr. Gowtham Thej, following instructions from the petitioner (A.2). It was also reported that the related file, bearing Roc.No.A/392/2023, dated 22.12.2023, was not located in the Tahsildar's office in Madanapalle, according to a report from the Tahsildar. 16. The petitioner / A.2 stands accused of providing official confidential information to A.3, Madhav Reddy. The prosecution anchors its case on the seizure of 63 documents from A.3's residence, as detailed in the mediator's report. The core allegation is that A.3 obtained these documents with A.2's help. The documents retrieved from A.3's residence are related to 22A lands, which were allegedly provided by A.2. In addition, the prosecution has secured Call Data Records (CDRs) to substantiate the claim further, showing that all the accused were in contact with each other. 17. The prosecution has levelled serious allegations of a conspiracy to create false records by forging signatures and diverting funds. It is claimed that individuals within the office forged specific signatures on official files. It is further alleged that in a bid to cover up their illicit activities, A.2 to A.4, in collusion with others, are accused of plotting to set fire to the Sub-Collectorate in Madanapalle. They allegedly manipulated A.1 into carrying out the arson at B2C, Sub-Collectorate, Madanapalle, where nearly 2,400 files were destroyed in a deliberate attempt to obliterate crucial evidence that could expose their involvement. 18. They allegedly manipulated A.1 into carrying out the arson at B2C, Sub-Collectorate, Madanapalle, where nearly 2,400 files were destroyed in a deliberate attempt to obliterate crucial evidence that could expose their involvement. 18. The investigation is at the initial stage. The petitioner has to be interrogated in the custody. The release of the petitioner may adversely affect the investigation process. The test of a prima facie or probable case only requires that it be shown at the time of framing of charge. 19. The nature of the accusations is grave. The anticipatory bail, the extraordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the court is prima facie convinced that the petitioner is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted. The necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner is paramount in this case to facilitate a thorough investigation into the accusations. Denying custodial interrogation could result in significant loopholes and gaps in the ongoing investigation, adversely affecting its integrity. To bring out all material information relating to the offence, the petitioner must undergo custodial interrogation. 20. Considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances and thus, no such circumstances being having been made out in this case, this court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner/Accused. 21. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, this court concludes that the petitioner is not entitled to leniency in the grant of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition, lacking merit, and is dismissed. 22. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made in the present case, which are only for adjudicating the present bail application. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.