AB 1802/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Sri D C Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Sri B S Sinh a, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. I have also perused the Case Diary. This application U/S 438 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Thaneswar Deka, praying for anticipatory bail apprehending his arres t in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 282 of 2011 under Sections 406/ 407/ 4 68/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the present petitioner is a Committ ee Officer in the Assam Legislative Assembly and attached to North East Regional Institute of Parliamentary Studies (NERIPSTR), Training and Research. It is the further case of the prosecution that being the Committee Officer he was the cus todian of the cheques and while the cheque-book was in his custody 4 (four) cheq ue-leaves were found missing and out of those 4 (four) cheque-leaves, 3 (three) cheques were utilized to withdraw a sum of Rs. 11,16,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Sixteen Thousand). Out of this amount, at least Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) was deposited in the personal account of the present petitioner. Sri Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whe n the petitioner came to know about the deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- in his account , he immediately filed a complaint in the Court. In this regard, the Principal S ecretary of the Legislative Assembly has stated in the FIR that the complaint wa s filed without prior intimation to the Director of North East Regional Institut e of Parliamentary Studies (NERIPSTR). Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was the custodian of the cheques and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in his accoun t on 31.03.2011. Besides this, the petitioner made several transactions of withd rawal from his bank account, even after 31.03.2011 and despite that, he did not take note of the deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- in his account and did not report ab out the incident to the concerned authority. Hence, it is not a fit case of anti cipatory bail. In my opinion, it is a fit case for custodial interrogation of th e accused petitioner. The interim order dated 24.06.2011 hereby stands vacated. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer for doing the needful. With the aforesaid directions, this Anticipatory Bail Applicatio n stands disposed of.