( 1 ) THE present two petitions [crl. M. (M) 1114185 and Cri. M. (M) 1102185] of the same person Rama Swaroop are being decided together and the judgment is being written in Cri. Misc. (Main) 1114185. He apprehends arrest by the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as FERA) as well as Delhi Police and, Intelligence Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IB ). He, therefore, in each of the applications has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Both the applications are contested and the FERA authorities as well as the police want to arrest the petitioner. Delhi police wants to arrest the petitioner because, acording to them, the petitioner has committed offences punishable under sections 3 and 5 etc. of the Official Secrets Act. FERA authorities complain of violation by the petitioner of different provisions of FERA.

( 2 ) THS petitioner is having his residence at D-83, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He has two offices-one is located at A-5, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi while the other is located at 67, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, he is honorary representative in India of Far East Trade Services, a business promotion organisation of Republic of China (Taiwan) and his function is to promote business between India and the Republic of China. He claims that on account of his, efforts by his very promotional activities increased the business between the two countries from a paltry sum of 10 million US dollars annually to about 200 million US dollars yearly.

( 3 ) THE petitioner states in the petitions that he is an avowed anti-communist since his student days, that he is head of Indian Chapter of the Asian Pacific Anti-Communist League (for short APAC) which has branches called Chapters in several Common Wealth countries.

( 4 ) THE FERA authorities conducted searches of the residence and business places of the petitioner on 6th, 9th and 19th September 1985 and recovered some foreign exchange as well as number of documents. The recovery of the foreign exchange and documents are mentioned in different recovery memos described as panchnamas . : Photostat copies of those recovery memos are attached with Criminal Misc. (Main) 1102 of 1985. It is urged by the petitioner that nothing incriminating was in the documents and that the foreign exchange which was recovered from him was practically of negligible value and that, therefore, there is no violation of any of the provisions of FERA. His explanation, as given in the petition, in respect of recovery of foreign exchange is as follows. He had a son who was suffering from a desease which atrophied the whole body muscles and snuffs out life by the time the victim reached the age of 16117 years. That son was very fond of collecting stamps, coins and currency notes of different countries. He, therefore, collected foreign currency notes which were left over from the journeys abroad of the petitioner. Just out of parental sentiments for the only son who was bound to die, the petitioner did not touch the almirah in which his son was keeping the foreign exchange. After the death of that, a son, that almirah was never opened. It was from that Almirah that the foreign exchange of nominal value was recovered. The petitioner has given the value in rupee of different, currencies of the foreign countries recovered from his house.

( 5 ) THE petitioner states that when the searches were conducted by FERA authorities he was cut of India, that although the FERA authorities wanted to summon him yet he could not come because he was not in India at that time.

( 6 ) THE petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of Smt. Anita Sethi, who is manager of his business Far East Trade Service Inc. In that affidavit Smt. Anita Sethi has stated as to how much foreign exchange was being received regularly per month by the petitioner. The details of that foreign exchange given by her are as under :-

(A) US $ 800 per month along with actual expen