Petitioner is the 3rd accused. He is the manging director of the 2nd accused company, which is a registered agent to recruit employees for overseas jobs under the Emigration Act 1983. At the interview conducted by the company in December 2014 about 1200 nurses were selected for appointment to Kuwait government service. They were entitled to free air ticket. Under Rule 25 of the Emigration Rules for the services rendered by it the company was entitled to collect Rs.20,000/- or an amount equivalent to wages for 45 days, whichever was higher from each selected candidate. But it made a false representation to the selected candidates that they were bound to pay the company Rs.19,50,000/- each, and Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/- each towards miscellaneous charges such as visa stamping fee and attestation of documents. Some paid the full amount and others only a part. No receipt was given for the payment. But everyone of the selected candidates was made to sign an affidavit on a 10 rupee stamp paper stating that she paid only Rs.19,500/-, and in its records the company made a false entry that the amount collected from each selected candidate was only Rs.19,500/-. So far as the candidates who were not able to pay the full amount, no entry was made in the company's official registers; whatever amount they paid was entered in unofficial electronic records kept in the custody one of its officers; the balance amount was shown as a loan taken from the company by the said candidates; each of them was made to issue a signed blank cheque, and an affidavit stating that the said amount was paid to them by the company as loan. This illegality was committed by the company and the petitioner pursuant to the conspiracy entered into by them and the 1st accused Protector of Emigrants. The offences committed by them fall under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 24 and 25 of the Emigration Act. This, in brief, is the prosecution case.

2. Protector of Emigrants is appointed under Section 3 of the Emigration Act. Their general duties are enumerated in Section 4 of the Act. He is bound to protect and aid with his advice all intending emigrants and emigrants and cause, so far as he can, all the provisions of the Act and of the rules made thereunder to be complied with.

3. In this case the prosecution alleges that pursuant to the conspiracy entered into between him and the co-accused-including the petitioner-about 1,200 candidates selected for appointment as nurses to Kuwait government service were cheated.

4. In the raid conducted by the Income Tax authorities and by the CBI several incriminating documents were seized from the company.

5. As petitioner is the manging director of the 2nd accused company there cannot be any doubt that he is in charge of and is responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Being an artificial person a company can act only through human beings. At present the petitioner is abroad. Learned counsel submits that he is eager to come back to India and help the investigating officer to complete the investigation; but he has been prevented from doing so by the CBI which has issued a look out notice for him, the result of which is that he will be arrested the moment he lands in India. The prayer is to grant him anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel Smt.Meenakshi Arora has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (AIR 1980 SC 1632) and Siddharam Sat Lingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others (2011(1) SCC 694) in support of her argument that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. In Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia's case the Supreme Court has observed:

".........A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due car