JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision Application directed against the order dated 8.867 passed 'by the B. D.O. Magistrate, First Class, Sadar, Cuttack, granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party in G. R. Case No. 1313/1699 T/67 of 1967. The State of Orissa has filed this revision application on the allegation that there was no formal warrant of arrest issued against the opposite party. As such by merely appearing before the learned Magistrate the opposite party could not obtain an order for anticipatory bail. 2. Mr. Rahenoma, appearing for the opposite party, contends that this application has become infructuous inasmuch as the case in question has now been woodlouse. Mr. Ramdas, appearing for the State, however, wants me to decide the question as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law. There was no consensus of judicial opinion on this point. Majority of the High Courts, however, had supported the view that there Wa3 no provision for any anticipatory bail. Reference may be made to AIR 1950 E P 53 (FB), (Amir Chand v. Crown AIR 1954 Mad 113 (FB), State v. Dallu Punia Juhar Mal and Another Vs. The State, ; Amjad Sheik Vs. The State Amjad v. State Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh Vs. G. Manikya Rao Public Prosecutor v. Manikya Rao; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narayan Prasad Jaiswal, AIR 1966 Mys 71, State of Mysore v. Baswanth Rao and Varkey Paily Madathikudiyil Pulinthanam and Another Vs. State of Kerala, . Some decisions have also taken a contrary view, such as AIR 1952 Mad 161 , State v. Mangilal and Abdul Karim Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, But the point has recently been decided by the Supreme court and their Lordships have taken the view that there is no provision for any anticipatory bail within the home work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view of the opinion of the majority of the High Courts as approved by the Supreme Court correctly represents the law. :This revision is disposed of accordingly.