This petition is filed by the 9th accused for anticipatory bail.

Facts briefly:

2. According to prosecution, huge amount of money, running to crores was misappropriated by several persons from government exchequer, by using certain forged documents. The crime was detected when the first accused was arrested and interrogated by the Sub Inspector of Police. He allegedly created fake bills purported to be issued to several persons for the purchase of bitumen (tar) from the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL, for short) and Indian Oil Corporation (`IOC, for short). Those persons include government contractors, engineers, office bearers of District Panchayath, Grama Panchayath etc. Such bills were presented by several persons and to claim huge amount of money from the government and the money was paid also.

3. The petitioner is one of such government contractors, who was in possession of such forged bills created by the first accused and knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall be fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine. He made a claim for more than Rs.11 lakhs from the government, on the strength of such forged bills created and supplied by first accused, purporting to be issued by Bharath Petroleum Company or Indian Oil Company for the purchase of bitumen. The investigation is proceeded against 9 accused for offences under sections 465, 468, 471, 474, 20, 511 of 420, 420 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Petitioners contentions: According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The petitioner, as a government contractor, had taken up a contract for road-work and he also submitted bills before the Executive Engineers office for purchase of tar. The physical verification of the tar used for the work was done by Engineers and those are entered in a measurement book also. The bills produced by him were duly countersigned by the officials concerned after verification and upon satisfaction that the tar is used. The bills are accepted only thereafter.

5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that other similarly placed accused in this crime were granted anticipatory bail by different benches of this Court, as per different orders issued on their applications for anticipatory bail and hence, petitioner is also entitled to get the same relief from this court. It is also pointed out by him that even the third accused who allegedly obtained more than Rs.40 lakhs also was granted anticipatory bail, but the petitioner has not even obtained the money but only made a claim. Therefore, the High Court cannot speak in two voices, he added.

6. In a case of this nature, the guilt or involvement of the petitioner can be proved by documentary evidence and a custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and if at all it is required, it can be done, even after granting anticipatory bail, learned counsel for petitioner submitted. According to him, if anticipatory bail is not granted, it will only ensure custodial torture by the police by using third degree method and, hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail may be granted by this Court.

7. Respondents contentions: Learned Director General of Prosecution vehemently opposed this bail application. He submitted that when the first application for anticipatory bail was filed in this case by the third accused, he had vehemently opposed the application and this fact was recorded also, in the order. It was pointed out that huge loss of money, to the tune of crores, was caused to the Government, in connection with the construction and maintenance of road by the use of fake bills and this was detected only when the first accused was arrested and questioned.

.8. Learned Director General of Prosecution also brought to my notice that he had addressed the authorities concerned and vigilantly taken steps to alert the Government on the oral observations

.made by this Court during the pendency of