ORDER : (S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.) 1. Petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in Crime No.63/2024 registered by CCB Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 336(3), 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.63/2024 was registered by CCB Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(1) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023, against Mohan based on the first information dated 28.10.2024 received from Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, Chief Editor of a Digital News Media. Apprehending arrest in the case, petitioner had filed bail application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.1522/2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court since charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the said petition. It appears that thereafter, a fresh bail application was filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.3514/2025 which was rejected on 09.05.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that accused Nos.1 and 2, who were arrested in the present case have been granted regular bail and accused No.4 has been granted anticipatory bail. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have confessed to the crime and they have stated that fraudulent and fake marks cards, degree certificates etc. were prepared by them. Petitioner is the Vice Chancellor of the University and he had no role in the alleged crime. He is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Since charge sheet is already filed, petitioner's custodial interrogation is no more required. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of seven years. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the employees of the University of which the petitioner is the Vice Chancellor. He, accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are the employees of the University of which the petitioner is the Vice Chancellor. The allegation in the charge sheet is that without conducting any examinations, University was issuing fraudulent and fake marks cards and degree certificates of various courses including post graduate courses to the students after collecting huge money from them. Petitioner is the head of the University and considering the nature of allegations found, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no role in the alleged crime. Though enquiry notices have been issued to him, he has not cooperated for investigation. Charge sheet is filed only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and liberty is reserved for further investigation insofar as other accused persons, including the petitioner is concerned. It appears that similar fraud is committed even in other States and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner, who is the head of the University which has issued the fraudulent and fake marks cards, degree certificates etc. is necessary. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 6. First informant, who is the Chief Editor of a Digital News Media, based on credible information had conducted a sting operation in the office of accused No.1 - Mohan and found that he was issuing marks cards and degree certificates to the students after collecting huge money from them for various graduate and post graduate courses in the name of Apex Professional University, Arunachal Pradesh and other Universities of Arunachal Pradesh and therefore, she had submitted a first information before the CCB Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.63/2024, initially against accused No.1 - Mohan. 7. During the course of investigation, a raid was conducted to the office premises of accused No.1 and huge number of fake marks cards and degree certificates pertaining to various courses including post graduate and professional courses were seized. In addition to the same, documents such as e-stamp agreements, format of duplicate marks card etc. were also seized from the premises of accused No.1. Accused No.2 was found to be working along with accused No.1. In addition to the same, documents such as e-stamp agreements, format of duplicate marks card etc. were also seized from the premises of accused No.1. Accused No.2 was found to be working along with accused No.1. After accused No.1 and 2 were arrested, during the course of their interrogation, they have allegedly confessed to the crime and it appears that they also have stated that petitioner is the Vice Chancellor of the aforesaid University in the name of which the fraudulent and fake marks cards, degree certificates etc., were issued to the students after collecting money from them. They also had stated that students were not required to appear for any examinations. It is under these circumstances, enquiry notices was issued to the petitioner and learned HCGP has submitted that inspite of repeated enquiry notices, the petitioner has not cooperated for the purpose of investigation. 8. During the course of investigation, 164 marks cards of various students relating to various graduate and post graduate courses were recovered from the premises of accused Nos.1 and 2 and about 38 incriminating documents were also collected. From a reading of the charge sheet, which is now filed, it is very clear that the said charge sheet is filed only as against accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that, liberty has been reserved to the investigating agency to conduct further investigation insofar as other accused including the petitioner is concerned. 9. In Crl.P.No.1522/2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn, in paragraph No.3, this Court had observed as follows:- "3. Learned HCGP submits that after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against accused nos.1 & 2 only. So far as petitioner herein and another accused, they have not cooperated with the police and they are throughout absconding. Therefore, as against them, liberty is reserved to file additional charge sheet after investigation is completed. She submits that from the charge sheet which is now filed against accused nos.1 & 2, it is apparent that the absconding accused persons also have played a major role in committing the crime." 10. Therefore, as against them, liberty is reserved to file additional charge sheet after investigation is completed. She submits that from the charge sheet which is now filed against accused nos.1 & 2, it is apparent that the absconding accused persons also have played a major role in committing the crime." 10. Though learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the maximum punishment for the same is imprisonment for a period of seven years, the same itself cannot be a criteria for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused who according to the prosecution has indulged in committing the crime which has serious impact on the society. According to the prosecution, students who have not even appeared for the examinations and who are not at all qualified were issued the various degrees including post graduate degrees and based on the same, the said students would have secured jobs in private companies and also in Government Departments. 11. As rightly contended by learned HCGP, raid was conducted only in the office of the University at Bengaluru and issuance of similar fake marks cards and degree certificates in other States by the very same University cannot be ruled out. For the said purpose, interrogation of the petitioner who is the Vice chancellor of the University becomes very necessary. Since the marks cards and degree certificates were issued to the students without even conducting any examination, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the alleged fraud that was being committed in the office of the University at Bengaluru. The material on record would go to show that petitioner hails from State of Punjab and he is the Vice Chancellor of a University at Arunachal Pradesh. The fraud has been committed in the office of the University at Bengaluru and it appears that University has acquired immovable properties even in Bengaluru in the name of University. Therefore, it is apparent that petitioner has a major role in the functioning of the university of which he claims to be the Vice Chancellor. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab - (2025) 4 SCC 493 , has observed in paragraph Nos.23 and 24, as follows:- "23. Therefore, it is apparent that petitioner has a major role in the functioning of the university of which he claims to be the Vice Chancellor. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab - (2025) 4 SCC 493 , has observed in paragraph Nos.23 and 24, as follows:- "23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant accused of indulging in corruption." 13. In the case of SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE VS. ADITYA SARDA - 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 764 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.18 has observed as follows:- "18. Now, so far as anticipatory bail is concerned, this court has consistently emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offences, involving large scale fraud, public money or complex financial crimes. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement - (2019) 9 SCC 24 , it was observed as under:- “ Grant of anticipatory bail in exceptional cases 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. 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… 70. …. 71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article, i.e., ‘… except according to a procedure prescribed by law’. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna Balothia [ (1995) 3 SCC 221 ; 1995 SCC (Cri) 439.] , the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as under : (SCC page 226, paragraph 7) ‘7.… We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed: “We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised.”’ In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a court of session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non- application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21. (emphasis supplied) 72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 of the 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. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 73. to 76. ……………….. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [ (2011) 1 SCC 694 ; (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [ (2012) 4 SCC 379 ; (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC page 386, paragraph 19) ‘19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [ (2007) 4 SCC 434 ; (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [ (2008) 1 SCC 213 ; (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [ (2008) 13 SCC 305 ; (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].’ Economic offences 78. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [ (2008) 1 SCC 213 ; (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [ (2008) 13 SCC 305 ; (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].’ Economic offences 78. Power under Section 438 of the 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. 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.” 14. In the case of Y.S JAGAN MOHAN REDDY VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - (2013) 7 SCC 439 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.34 and 35, has observed as follows:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited 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 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.” 15. In the case of NIMMAGADDA PRASAD V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - (2013) 7 SCC 466 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.23 has observed as under:- “23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [ (1987) 2 SCC 364 ; 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under : (SCC page 371, paragraph 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 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 consequence 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.’” 16. It is relevant to note that petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.1522/2025 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.04.2025 and as on the said date, charge sheet was already filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no change in circumstance thereafter, for entertaining this successive bail application of the petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be rejected. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.