Judgment :- 1. The petitioners are accused 2 and 4 to 12 in crime No. 110 of 1977 of the Chittur police station. A case has been registered against them for offences punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 426, 506 (ii) and 307 read with S.149 IPC. The first informant is one Ramakrishnan who belongs to the family of the petitioner. At about 10 P. M. on 3-8-1977 the petitioners along with others are said to have formed an unlawful assembly in front of the gate of the residential house of the first informant with a view to commit the offences mentioned above. The first informant was criminally intimidated and a challenge was extended to him to get out of the house. The first informant remained inside the house. On being exhorted by some of the members of the unlawful assembly, the first accused in the case who had a pistol with him is stated to have fired six or seven rounds aiming at the place where the first informant was sitting. The other members of the unlawful assembly are stated to have pelted stones at the house. Since the first informant refused to get out of the house, the unlawful assembly dispersed and the petitioners went away. 2. This petition is for anticipatory bail on the following grounds: The first informant is a political leader of the locality and is wielding considerable influence over the officials. The case has been registered on account of political rivalry between the petitioners and the first informant. The accusation against the petitioners is false. The petitioners, however, genuinely apprehend that they would be arrested by the police on the basis of the accusation and that they would be unnecessarily detained in custody with the object of causing disgrace and physical harm to them. 3. An application for the identical relief was moved before the Sessions Judge, Palghat. The Sessions judge disallowed the prayer stating that since a crime has been registered it is upto the petitioners to move for bail is the lowest court of competent jurisdiction by presenting themselves before that court. A similar stand has been taken by the State in this court. It is also contended by the State that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the granting of anticipatory bail. 4. A similar stand has been taken by the State in this court. It is also contended by the State that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the granting of anticipatory bail. 4. The main point for decision is whether dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail on the ground that a crime has been registered is correct. 5. The provision regarding anticipatory bail is contained in S.438(1) which reads: "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. (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, be shall be released on bail." 6. The provision is new and was introduced into the statute book on the recommendation of the 41st report of the Law Commission. Though the report used the word "anticipatory bail" what the section contemplates is a direction that in the event of an arrest the person concerned be released on bail. The conditions required for invoking the provision are: (1) the existence of an accusation of the applicant having committed a non-bailable offence, and (1) the applicant having reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested on the, basis of the accusation. An order granting anticipatory bail takes effect only on the arrest of the concerned person and such arrest is possible only after a case is registered by the police. There is, however no obligation cast on a person against whom a crime has been registered by the police for having committed a non-bailable offence to appear before the court to get himself released on bail. If there is no such duty cast on him to surrender and move for bail, it does not stand to reason that he should be deprived of the right to move for anticipatory bail as soon as a crime is registered against him. 7. If there is no such duty cast on him to surrender and move for bail, it does not stand to reason that he should be deprived of the right to move for anticipatory bail as soon as a crime is registered against him. 7. The reason for incorporating the provision relating to anticipatory bail is given in the 41st report of the Law Commission: "The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him to first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." 8. The purpose which the Law Commission and the framers of the Code had in view will only be half served if it is to be held that the privilege of moving for anticipatory bail will cease to exist once a crime is registered against applicant. To say that the right to move for anticipatory bail is available only so long as the accusation against the applicant is in the air and not after it materialises and a crime is registered will make the provision practically nugatory because there could be no arrest till a crime is registered and therefore there won't be any occasion for apprehending arrest till a crime is registered. 9. An accusation that a person has committed non-bailable offence may arise not only on the basis of the report of a police officer but also on a complaint made by the aggrieved party. If the interpretation put by the learned Sessions Judge is accepted, on a parity of reasoning the right to move for an anticipatory bail ceases the moment a complaint is filed, irrespective of whether the court decides to issue process to the accused or not Neither the Law Commission nor the Parliament would have expected that the law would be expounded in the above manner. The more reasonable interpretation is that the right to move for anticipatory bail is available to a petitioner till he is actually arrested on the basis of the accusation. The petitioners are, therefore, not disentitled to move for anticipatory bail. 10. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and is expected to be used only in exceptional cases. At the same time if the facts of a case are such that there is every likelihood that the petitioners would be granted bail it a motion is made on that behalf after their arrest there is no justification for a demand that they should remain in custody for some time and then get released on bail. 11. As already stated the case of the petitioners is that they are implicated in the case due to political animosity. Though the crime registered includes an offence under S.307 IPC., the petitioners themselves are not the persons by whom the act constituting the offence under S.307 IPC. is stated to nave been committed. There is no case that the petitioners are likely to abscond. The only apprehension is that if the petitioners remain at large there is the likelihood of breach of peace. This can be safeguarded by making appropriate provision in the bond to be executed. 12. The petition is therefore allowed In the event of their arrest the petitioners will be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs. 1000/- each with two solvent sureties for each of them for like amounts. Each of the petitioners will also undertake that (1) he will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, (2) he will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer, (3) he will not leave India without the previous permission of court, (4) and he will not engage himself in any activity which will lead to breach of peace.