JUDGMENT Kotwal J.-Heard Shri Bhonsale, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Perused the relevant papers of investigation which are tendered by the Investigating Officer who is present in Court. 3. As per the allegations, the victim of the assault was sitting along with his friend on railway platform at Neral Railway Station when a bunch of miscreants armed with open swords and knives made their entry and started assaulting the victim. Realising the potential danger the victim rushed for his safety and the nearest place being the Station Master's office he entered the same and it is further alleged that out of the said group some persons entered the office and perpetrated the further assault with the result that the victim sustained several injuries. The companion who was obviously apprehensive of his own safety tried to ran in opposite direction when he was also chased by some out of the said group and was assaulted with the sword. This incident is witnessed apart from the victim, by his companion whose name is Gotiram Jadhav, the Station Master Shri Sharma is also an eye-witness and the prosecution claim that he is the natural witness. A person working in the nearby hotel namely Vasant also claims to have seen the incident. 4. The petitioners moved the Sessions Court for bail in anticipation of their arrest under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Pending the disposal they were granted interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. However, after hearing both the sides he rejected the application on 28th of October, 1985 and that is how the petitioners have moved this Court for a similar request to be enlarged on bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Without embarking on the enquiry on the merits of the matter the minimum that can be said is that as per the prosecution case there are not less than four witnesses who have witnessed the incident and those include the victim himself. The medical certificate shows that the victim had sustained three incised wounds and the index finger had to be imputed. He was then transferred to Thane Civil Hospital for further treatment. The medical certificate shows that the victim had sustained three incised wounds and the index finger had to be imputed. He was then transferred to Thane Civil Hospital for further treatment. Shri Bhonsale, the learned counsel, submits vigorously that there has been long standing enmity and that the petitioners have not been properly identified by any of these witnesses and the first information report in that behalf does not name all the accused. I am afraid this argument may not be available at least while considering the application for bail in anticipation of the arrest under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that apparently the incident is of serious dimensions and granting bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code even prior to the arrest would add danger to the situation and the Investigating Officer apprehends further that the investigation would be hampered. This submission canvassed on behalf of the prosecution cannot be said to be un-justified. Application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has its own limitations. The factors which may be relevant while considering application under section 439 may not be available at this stage. The weapons are yet to be recovered and the incident occurred openly on the railway platform. 6. Considering all these features in totality in my opinion this is not a case where bail in anticipation of the arrest can be granted. The bare fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to grant interim bail can hardly change the complexion and the fate of this proceeding as under the circumstances if on merits this is not a case of bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then the previous order of the Sessions Court would be inconsequential. Shri Chopda, the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in granting interim bail also. The validity of this argument need not be gone into though apparently there is much substance in that contention raised on behalf of the prosecution. 7. There is no expression on merits and the observations are restricted to this proceeding only. 8. Application rejected. Bail refused. Anticipatory bail refused