JUDGEMENT 1. By this Criminal Revision Application the petitioners seek to obtain an order setting aside the order dated 17-12-1974 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panaji, under Section 438, Criminal P.C. granting conditional bail to the petitioners. 2. The introductory paragraph of the said order reads as follows :- "The application is allowed and the accused/applicants if arrested, are directed to be released after a period of 5 days from custody under the following conditions." Thereafter follows five conditions which are not relevant to the issues involved. The contention of the petitioners is that the said order is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as it directs the petitioners to be released five days after their arrest, in case they had been arrested. I entirely agree with the contention of Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners. Section 438(1) reads as follows :- "(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail." It is clear from this section that the only power given to the Sessions Court and the High Court by the newly introduced Section 438(1), Criminal P.C. is to pass an order directing that a petitioner for anticipatory bail be released in the event of his being arrested. The power is to pass, before their arrest, an order directing that the petitioners be released in the event of such arrest. The court can under Section 438. Criminal P.C. either direct that the petitioner be released upon he being arrested, on any of the conditions mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of that Section, or reject the application. Section 438 does not enable the court to pass an order releasing the petitioner on bail, to be operative, some days after the arrest is effected. The very purpose of the section would be defeated if the court did not issue a direction releasing the petitioner on bail upon his arrest. Section 438 does not enable the court to pass an order releasing the petitioner on bail, to be operative, some days after the arrest is effected. The very purpose of the section would be defeated if the court did not issue a direction releasing the petitioner on bail upon his arrest. An order, like the order challenged before me, defeats the very purpose of Section 438, which to enable a parson to obtain, before his arrest, a direction from the court to release him on bail in the event of his arrest. As rightly pointed out by Shri Joshi the effect of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge would be to disable the petitioners from making a regular application for bail under Section 437, Criminal P.C. upon their arrest. It seems to me that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is totally misconceived. He failed to understand the implication of Section 438, Criminal P.C. which was introduced for the purpose of enabling persons who have reasons to believe that they may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, to apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction that, in the event of such arrest they be released on bail. The learned Sessions Judge was free to pass an order attaching the conditions mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of Sub-Section (2) of S.438, Criminal P.C. or to reject the application for anticipatory bail but he was not entitled to give a direction making his order operative five days after their arrest. The petitioners were entitled, upon their arrest, to make an application to a Magistrate for their release on bail. This right of the petitioners was purported to have been taken away by the order because the effect of the order is that the petitioners would be entitled to make an application only five days after their arrest. Section 438, Criminal P.C. does not entitle the Court to override the provisions of Section 437 and to stay for a certain period of time the right of the petitioner to apply for and to obtain his release on bail. 3. Section 438, Criminal P.C. does not entitle the Court to override the provisions of Section 437 and to stay for a certain period of time the right of the petitioner to apply for and to obtain his release on bail. 3. I am constrained to agree with the petitioners that whilst passing the order the learned Sessions Judge imposed a punishment on the petitioners totally unwarranted by law and grossly in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by Section 438, Criminal P.C. Before inflicting such punishment it was the duty of the Learned Sessions Judge to try and interpret the provisions of Section 438, which to my mind are couched in very clear language. 4. In the circumstances I have to accept the revision application and set aside the order of the Learned Sessions Judge. ORDER The Criminal Revision Application is allowed and order of the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji dated 17-12-1974, is set aside. Revision allowed.