Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner Fakira Singh who is an accused in Jandaha P.S case No. 71/82 dated 27.5.1982 under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code The allegation is that the petitioner, along with others, went with Chhara and bomb on 27.5.1982 and committed dacoity. 2. The case of the petitioner, however, is that he is a Lokdal candidate and the prosecution party belong to Congress (I) party and they were out to involve the petitioner in some case or the other, inasmuch as on 3.3.1982 vide Annexure-2, Mr. Ram Bilas Paswan, an M.P., wrote to the District Magistrate, Vaishali that there is a threat of the petitioner being involved by the local people as he belongs to Lokdal, a political party On 24-3-1982 the President of India wrote to Mr. Paswan acknowledging a letter dated 23-2-1982 from him and assuring him that the State Government has been appraised of this fact. On 5.4.1982 Mr. Paswan wrote to the Superintendent of police Vaishali stating that the upper class people are out to oppress the petitioner AH these correspondents some of which with law and order authority arose not in remote past but a month before the occurrence, i.e, 27.5.1982 Learned lawyer of the petitioner contends, that this case is outcome of political rivalry and as apprehended earlier a case of false implication. With these allegations Sessions Judge, Vaishali, was moved for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Session Judge dismissed the petition of preliminary point alone without touching the merit of the case. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, once a warrant of arrest is issued, Courts jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is ousted and a petition for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable Few cases were cited before him, but the learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that none of the cases decide the question which fell for consideration before him. Learned Sessions Judge admits in his order, that from a mere reading of Section 438 of the Code he of course does not find any constrain this regard. 4. I think, the learned Sessions Judge is entertaining wrong impression of law as to the scope of Sec. 438 of the Code. Learned Sessions Judge admits in his order, that from a mere reading of Section 438 of the Code he of course does not find any constrain this regard. 4. I think, the learned Sessions Judge is entertaining wrong impression of law as to the scope of Sec. 438 of the Code. Resort to Sec. 438 of the Code is called for when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence Likelihood of arrest is sine qua non for the applicability of Sec. 438 of the Code The issue of warrant of arrest therefore butress and fortify the apprehension and takes it to the region of imminent danger affecting the liberty of a person-Section 438 of the Code is only inapplicable after arrest, which is manifest from the very scheme of the Section. In law there is not much of difference between an anticipatory bail and regular bail, inasmuch as, even in the former case the order becomes operative after arrest. The law in relation to the scope of Sec. 438 of the Code has been clearly laid down in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. V/s. The State of Punjab -- . In paragraph 35 of the said decision their Lordships have laid down the conditions which have to be satisfied before a person can invoke the provision of Sec. 438 of the Code. Their Lordships have observed the expression "reason to believe" must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere fear is not belief. In the case of issuance of warrant of arrest, the matter no more remain in the domain of fear but, a certainty. I think the reason to believe stand on a firmer footing in such a situation for invocation of the power under Sec. 438 of the Code. The only condition as observed in the said case which makes Sec. 438 of the Code inapplicable, is after arrest as the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused who is under arrest involves a "contradiction in terms" in so far as the offence for which he is arrested. In my opinion, therefore, the Court below was not correct in refusing to exercise jurisdiction merely because warrant of arrest has been issued in the meanwhile. Section 438 (3) of the Code also throws considerable light on this issue. In my opinion, therefore, the Court below was not correct in refusing to exercise jurisdiction merely because warrant of arrest has been issued in the meanwhile. Section 438 (3) of the Code also throws considerable light on this issue. It provides that after the grant of anticipatory bail if a person is arrested without warrant by the Officer-in-charge of police station and if he is prepared either at the time of arrest to furnish security he should be released on bail. The said Section further states that if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person then he should issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the court under Sub-section (1). Whether a particular person shall be granted anticipatory bail or not is however a different question. 5. Coming to the merit of the case, I am of the opinion at this stage, after taking into consideration all circumstances and broad probabilities that in the event of petitioners arrest he shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in Jandaha P.S. Case No. 71/82 subject to all the conditions laid down under Sec. 438 (2) of the Code.