JUDGMENT :

S. Hukato Swu, J.

1. Mr. Wati Jamir appears for the petitioners and Mr. N. Mozhui assisted by Ms. N. Rupreo appears for the respondent No. 2/Nagaland Lokayukta Police, Nagaland.

2. The present matters relates to an order passed by this Court on 23-04-2021 granting ad-interim bail to the petitioners on certain conditions. The matters has been kept pending due to several reasons and the interim order stands till date without hearing on the regularization. On the last occasion, CD was called for and learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 is before the Court today with the case diary furnished by the Lokayukta Police Station.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Wati Jamir submits that the arguments to be presented by the petitioners are in nutshell contained in the previous order dated 23-04-2021 granting interim bail wherein, facts of the case have already been fairly reproduced. The Lokayukta in connection with RC No. 2/2020 under Section 13(1)(a)(b)(2) P.C. Act, 1988, several items were seized from the resident of the applicants. The matter basically concerns with the Integrated Catchment Area Treatment (ICAT) fund sanctioned by the Central Government for the period 2016-2017 amounting to Rs. 1.9 crores in respect of Kohima District. The fund could not be utilized for non compliance of the guidelines of ICAT by the then District Soil Conservation Officer (DSCO) of the Department for the district of Kohima. Only an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was utilized and the money that was not utilized was parked with the department. Since the scheme was not put up for release of the said fund by the DSCO. The seizure by the Lokayukta Police is related to the unutilized fund.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the merits of the case would be decided after the trial. As of now, we are concerned with the issues as to whether the petitioners case merits for grant of anticipatory bail considering their antecedents, character and status and the possibility of their absconding from the trial and also tempering with the evidence.

5. The petitioners were allowed to go on ad-interim bail on 23-04-2021 and has all along been cooperating with the investigation and are ready to appear before the investigation or Special Judge as the case may be as and when called for. The petitioners are also responsible citizens. The petitioner in AB No. 2/2021 is at present Additional Director while the petitioner in AB No. 3/2021 is a retired Director having deep roots in the society and responsible citizens. They are not likely to evade the Court of justice and tamper with the evidence or abscond or flee from the Court of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694. In the above cited ruling of the Apex Court, the matter for consideration of anticipatory bail application has been thoroughly discussed by the Apex Court wherein, it has pronounced that the following factors and parameters should be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:-

(1) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made

(2) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence

(3) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice

(4) the possibility of the accused likelihood to repeat similar or other offence

(5) where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her

(6) impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people

(7) while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fai