JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

3. The allegations relate to embezzlement of sacks of paddy.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State submits on instructions received from concerned police official that the petitioners have joined the investigation and is no more required.

REASONING:

6. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

 [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of th