The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail and permission to leave the country in cases involving serious offenses, considering the potential impact on the investigation and trial.

Amar Dutt, J.

1. In case against the petitioner was registered in Police Station, Matlauda on a written complaint being forwarded by the Deputy General Manager, (HR) on 19.6.2000, as a result of the internal investigation of the contract file carried out by the Indian Oil Corporation (in short the Corporation) on 28.9.1999 regrading the pre-commissioning activity of the Hydro Crackers Unit and Hydrogen Generation Unit between January, 1999 and March, 1999. During this period, one M/S. Gayatari Engineering Company of Vadodara had been awarded and permitted to perform the work at rates, which were found by the Corporation to be exorbitant. According to the complainant, the contract had been awarded ignoring the rates fixed for similar works at Panipat Refinery on the basis of which the value of work, should not have exceeded Rs. 2,33,902/-. Initially, the work was estimated at Rs. 44,708/- and ultimately the work was awarded at approximately Rs. 60,00,000/- to M/S Gayatari Engineering Company out of which 10% is stated to have been passed on to the petitioner. In this way, according to the Deputy General Manager a loss of about Rs. 38.33 lacs had been caused to the Corporation. The relevant portion of the complaint is as under:-

"(i) In the first week of March, 1999 he caused and manipulated a proposal (which was back dated in January 7,1999, copy of which is enclosed) to have the work estimated at Rs. 44.78 lacs (Rs. forty four lacs and seventy eight thousand only) on the basis of idle manpower rates of a single contractor who had quoted very high idle manpower rates, (ii) Between the 3rd and 4th week of March, 1999 he caused a fresh estimate of Rs. 60.34 lacs (Rs. Sixty lacs thirty four thousand only), copy of which is enclosed, for the work based on a forged copy of an order purported to have been placed on 2.4.96 by M/S. Finolex on M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. for a similar work. Copy of the forged fax is also enclosed, (iii) He also caused the first page of the estimate of Rs. 44.78 lacs be then replace by the fresh estimate of Rs. . 60.34 lacs while retaining the second page of the original estimate, (iv) He placed on the record of Panipat Refinery for the contract the forged faxed copy of the alleged order dated 2.4.96 of M/S. Finolex on M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. with a view to justify the estimate of Rs. 60.34 lacs. When contacted M/S. Finolex has denied having issued any order as alleged on M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. Copy of the letter dated 29.6.99 of M/S. Finolex is also enclosed, (v) He caused M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. to furnish an offer dated January 8, 1999 for Rs. 80.48 lacs (Rs. eighty lacs forty eight thousand only)for the work and manipulated the record to show that no one other than M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. was willing to undertake the work, (vi) He caused M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. to pretend to reduce their order for the work to Rs. 60,35,728.00 (Rs. Sixty lacs thirty five thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) to match with the aforesaid manipulated estimate of Rs. 60.34 lacs and thereby manipulated the approval of the work to M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. for a total contract value of Rs. 60,35,728/-. There could be other acts of omission and commission on the part of M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. and Sh. K.P. Sharma. Consequently, M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. has hitherto been paid Rs. 40,65,709/(Rs. forty lacs sixty five thousand seven hundred and nine only) for the work by Panipat Refinery, resulting in a loss to Panipat Refinery and over payment to M/S. Gayatari Engineering Co. of more than about Rs. 38.33 lacs (Rs. Thirty eight lacs and thirty three thousand only)."

Consequently, it was stated that offences under Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC and under Section 7, 12 and 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B, IPC had been committed by the petitioner and Shri D.R. Patel, a partner of M/S. Gayatari Engineering Company.

2. The petitione