( 1 ) PREM Kumar Parmar and his brother Lalit Kumar Parmar, who have been arrested in R. C. No. 11188 SPF-CBI-SIU (viii) under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471, Indian Penal Code, (for short ipc ), have filed two separate petitions seeking bail where as Mrs. Savita Parmar and her two daughters have filed a separate petition seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.

( 2 ) THE allegations against the accused are that they have obtained huge subsidies from the Government by submitting statements which contained false facts. It appears that under a scheme to promote growth of fertilizer factories, the petitioners had allegedly set up factories for production of fertilizer and for its sale. and they allegedly prepared false documents showing manufacture and sale of fertilizer when actually nothing was done and on the basis of false documents prepared showing the manufacture and sale of fertilizer, the petitioners claimed huge amounts from the Government as subsidies and in this way they allegedly obtained about Rs. 4 crores. It has come out that for claiming the subsidies the petitioners had to file some statements containing the facts and those statements were verified by the Chartered Accountant with the certificate that the chartered accountant had checked the account books and other documents in support of the facts mentioned m the said statements of the petitioners for claiming subsidies. Those supporting documents, which have been seized showing the manufacture and sale of fertilizer, are said to be all fictitious documents. A large number of documents have been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short cbi ). CBI had also seized certain assets belonging to the petitioners which they say were acquired on the basis of the said fraudulent documents and cheating.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the allegations made in the case do not show prima fade, commission of any offence punishable under Sec- tion 467 Indian Penal Code and thus, Prem Kumar and Lalit Kumar have become entitled to bail as the investigation has not been completed within sixty days. It is true that unless and until the case of the prosecution falls within the scope of Section 467 Indian Penal Code , the petitioners would have become entitled to bail under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short cr. P. C.), as the investigation admittedly has not been completed within sixty days. So, the question to be decided in the present case is whether, prima facie the petitioners can be said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 467 Indian Penal Code or not? It is true that the documents, particularly the statement s given by the two petitioners to the Government including the certificate of the Chartered Accountant submitted alongwith the said statements are not false documents to be covered by the definition given in Section 464 Indian Penal Code which reads as follows :- "464. Making a false document--A person is said to make a false document-

FIRST.-WHO dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document of part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, staled or executed; or

SECONDLY.-WHO, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration ; or

THIRDLY.-WHO dishonestly or fraudlently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of uns