JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that the Police have registered an F.I.R. No. 28 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, against the petitioner at Police Station Damtal for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner has an apprehension that the police would arrest him in connection with the aforesaid FIR, as he was working as a Manager in M/s ID Sood Ispat Ltd. at the relevant time. He has no role to play in the matter. He is innocent and belongs to a very reputable family in the area. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that a Bank Guarantee No.123442 amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/- was submitted by M/s ID Sood Ispat Village in favour of Assistant Engineer Electrical Sub Division, Damtal. The firm did not pay the electricity bill, and when the Electricity Board tried to encash the Bank guarantee, it was revealed by the Bank that the Board had permitted the firm to encash the Bank Guarantee. The Electricity Board checked its record and found that no such letter was ever written by the Board to the Bank. The Bank Guarantee was encashed by using a forged document. The Police registered an F.I.R. and seized the documents. It was found that an amount of Rs.39,23,428/- was deposited in the joint account of Raj Kumar Gupta and Radhika Mahajan, proprietors of M/s Sood Steels Pvt. Ltd. As per interrogation of the petitioner, he had submitted a letter to the Bank for encashing the Bank Guarantee. He had taken a banker’s cheque of Rs.39,23,428/- and handed it over to his employer’s company, namely, New Jammu Floor Mills. The petitioner is to be interrogated to find out where the letter was prepared and who had instructed him to present such letter before the Bank. The involvement of other persons, if any, is also to be ascertained. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The involvement of other persons, if any, is also to be ascertained. Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner is an employee of the firm who had handed over the letter to the Bank as per the instructions of the firm. He had not forged the document and had not benefited from the money. He would join the investigation and abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner had taken the letter to the Bank. The Bank guarantee was encashed pursuant to the letter submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine where the document was prepared and who had handed over the document to the petitioner. The involvement of other persons, if any, is also to be ascertained. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed: “69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of 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; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. 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; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the 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 the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not 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.” 8. It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that economic offences are to be treated differently from other offences. It was observed: Economic offences 78. 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 society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain , (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510 , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. xxxxxx 80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364 , it was held as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) “5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of the moment, upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit, regardless of the consequences to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.” 81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552 the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.”(Emphasis supplied) 82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261 , Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045 , while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [ Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998 decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom) ] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 9. This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, wherein it was held: “25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest, and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.” 10. It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed: “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 tightrope 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 case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 11. In the present case, the petitioner submitted the letter to the Bank for encashing the Bank Guarantee. He took the banker’s cheque from the Bank and handed it over to his employer. He was working as a Manager in the firm and held a responsible position. He would have been aware of the fact that the letter was written by the Electricity Board to the Bank, and it was not supposed to be in his possession but in the possession of an employee of the Bank or the employee of the Board. He was working as a Manager in the firm and held a responsible position. He would have been aware of the fact that the letter was written by the Electricity Board to the Bank, and it was not supposed to be in his possession but in the possession of an employee of the Bank or the employee of the Board. The fact that the letter written by the Board was in possession of the firm that had no authority to hold it should have been sufficient to alarm him. Being a responsible officer, he cannot take shelter behind the plea that he had simply handed over the letter to the Bank and the cheque to his employer. 12. The status report shows that no such letter was written by the Electricity Board. The Bank Guarantee was encashed on the basis of such a letter. Since the Board has specifically claimed that the letter was not written by it, therefore, prima facie, the letter is forged. The plea of the Police that the petitioner is to be interrogated to find out who had forged the letter and where the letter was forged is to be accepted as correct. 13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: - “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. Very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offender” 14. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032, wherein it was observed: - “13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect, and he could thwart interrogation, reducing it to futile rituals. But it must be also kept in mind that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.” 15. It was held in P. Chidambaram (supra) that the grant of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigation. It was observed: “83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information, and also the 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. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 16. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail; hence, the present petition is dismissed. 17. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.