JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The Petitioners have filed this application for anticipatory bail u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure. As borne out in the petition filed by them they are students prosecuting their studies in Jamshedpur and while coming to Rairangpur in a car had some altercation with the driver of a State Transport bus, who did not allow them to take over and obstructed the road by driving the vehicle in the middle of the road. This small instance resulted in chaos and the public intervened and ultimately Police came. The Petitioners were arrested by the police and later on released on bail. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against these two Petitioners under Sections 341, 332, 333 read with Section 34, I.P.C. in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairangpur, who has taken cognizance of the case and has issued summons to procure the attendance of the Petitioner in his Court. 2. The Petitioners apprehended that they being the residents of Bihar may be harassed in case of their surrender to the jurisdiction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and filed an application u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj. The Sessions Judge; Mayurbhaj rejected the application on the ground that since the charge sheet has been filed by the police in the Court after the investigation and the Court has taken cognizance of the case and summons were issued for their attendance in Court, there was no scope for the Petitioners to move petition for bail under, Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure In so doing he relied on an overruled decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is found from the order of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj dt. 22.5.89 that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairangpur after receipt of the charge-sheet took cognizance, but the order sheet did not show for what offences the Court had taken the cognizance against the Petitioner. 3. The question of jurisdiction to entertain an application u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure has been raised in several, cases. A Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1986 Cri.L.J. 1303 (Smt. Sheik Khasim Bi v. The State) relying upon the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Ramsewak and Others Vs. The question of jurisdiction to entertain an application u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure has been raised in several, cases. A Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1986 Cri.L.J. 1303 (Smt. Sheik Khasim Bi v. The State) relying upon the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Ramsewak and Others Vs. State of M.P., and also a Bench decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Puran Singh Vs. Ajit Singh and Another, came to hold that filing of a charge sheet by the police and issuing warrant by a Magistrate do not put an end to the power to grant bail u/s 438(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and according to those High Courts, the High Courts have power to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438(1) to a person after the Criminal Court has taken cognizance of the case and has issued process, namely, warrant of arrest of that accused person. 4. In a recent Bench decision of this High Court their Lordships expressed their respectful disagreement with the aforesaid view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and following the decision of a Single Bench of this High Court reported in 59 (1985) C.L.T. 110 (Mohan Behera and two Ors. v. State) and also in 51 (1981) C.L.T. 391 (Bhramar ' Bhramarbar Mohapatra and Anr. v. State of Orissa) have held that the prayer for application for anticipatory bail applies at a stage prior to arrest, when the person apprehends his arrest on being accused of committing a non-bailable offence. Once the person concerned is arrested or appears before the Court and the Court is in seisin over the matter and is then released on bail, the subsequent apprehension of his further arrest in the event of the matter being committed to the Court of Session, will not attract the operation of Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure. The case which was before the Division Bench reported in Padma Charan Panda Vs. S. Ram Mohan Rao and Others, held that a complaint petition having been filed, after the 202, Code of Criminal Procedure enquiry the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 149/324/337 and 296, I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and issued summons against the accused persons. The accused person appeared before the Magistrate and on their prayer, released on bail. The accused person appeared before the Magistrate and on their prayer, released on bail. While the matter was thus proceeding before the Magistrate, the opposite parties who are the accused persons apprehending that the case may be committed to the Court of Session and they might be again taken into custody filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure praying for an anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge allowed the prayer of the accused persons and ordered that in the event of committal, the accused persons would be released on bail. Against that order the complainant had preferred the criminal revision in this Court for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail. The High Court held that an order u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be passed before the arrest of the applicant. It is the imminent likelihood of arrest, founded on a reasonable belief on being accused of commission of a nonbailable offence which gives the jurisdiction to the Court of Session and High Court to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an accused can, invoke the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 438 so long he has not been arrested. 5. Sections 436, 437, 438 and 439 deal with the powers of the Court in the matter of grant or refusal of bail. Section 436 deals with the grant or refusal of bail in bailable offences. Section 437 deals with that in non-bailable offences by a Court other than the High Court or the Court of Session. Section 438 deals with grant of anticipatory bail which means bail in anticipation of arrest. The power u/s 438 has been conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session. The section does not take in its ambit the case of an accused against whom the Court has already issued process after taking cognizence of the offence; Section 439 deals with the special power of the Court or Court of Session regarding bail. The power u/s 438 has been conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session. The section does not take in its ambit the case of an accused against whom the Court has already issued process after taking cognizence of the offence; Section 439 deals with the special power of the Court or Court of Session regarding bail. Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, runs as follows: 437, When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence - (1) When any person accused of, or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but - (I) such person Shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. x x x x From Section 437 it appears that arrest and detention are used to signify arrest and detention by a Police Officer. The expression 'appears' and 'is brought' are used to signify appearance and arrest in obedience to a process of the Court. The expression is brought before a Court' is used in relation to issue of warrant while the expression 'appears' is used in relation to the issue of summons, Sections 238 and 239, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the trial of warrant cases by Magistrate also use the similar expressions. 'Arrest' consists of the actual seizure or touching of a person's body with a view to his detention. In that case before the Division Bench, the accused had been arrested and was released on bail by the Magistrate. Accordingly, this Court held that the provisions of Section 438 could not be invoked in that case and the application before the Sessions Court was not maintainable at the stage of passing of the commitment order u/s 209 or under the apprehension that the case may be committed to the Court of Session. 6. Accordingly, this Court held that the provisions of Section 438 could not be invoked in that case and the application before the Sessions Court was not maintainable at the stage of passing of the commitment order u/s 209 or under the apprehension that the case may be committed to the Court of Session. 6. In the present case the Court has taken cognizance, but the order-sheet does not show what are the offences for which cognizance had been taken whether that included a non-bailable case as has been observed by the Sessions Judge, who had perused the order-sheet of the S.D.J.M., Rairangpur, which statement is not controverted by the State, Therefore, it cannot be said that the present Petitioners apprehend that they are likely to be arrested in a nonbailable offence. 7. Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure envisages three stages. Sub-section (1) of the said section enables a person for making an application for bail when he reasonably apprehends that he may be arrested in respect of the accusation of commission of a non-bailable offence. Sub-section (2) enumerates the condition which may be imposed by the Court which makes an order u/s 438(1) and Sub-section (3) relates to execution or implementation of the order passed under Sub-section (1). The first part of Sub-section (3) mandatorily requires the Police Officer to release the person on bail pursuant to an order made under Sub-section (1). The second part of the Sub-section obliges the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence to issue a bailable warrant only instead of a non-bailable warrant against a person in whose favour an order under Sub-section (1) has been passed. Sub-section (3) would only come into operation after order under Sub-section (1) has been passed in favour of a person. If a Magistrate has already taken cognizance of an offence and has issued a non-bailable warrant, the stage for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session for an order of anticipatory bail is already over. In two of our Single Judge cases already referred to in this judgment namely 59 (1985) C.L.T. 110 (Mohan Behera and two Ors. v. State) and 51 (1981) C.L.T. 391 (Bhramar ' Bhramarbar Mohapatra and Anr. In two of our Single Judge cases already referred to in this judgment namely 59 (1985) C.L.T. 110 (Mohan Behera and two Ors. v. State) and 51 (1981) C.L.T. 391 (Bhramar ' Bhramarbar Mohapatra and Anr. v. State of Orissa) it has been held that Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot bring within its ambit the cases where the Court has already issued process by taking cognizance of the offence. Admittedly, in the present case after the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 332, 333 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the Court had taken cognizance and issued process, As such the stage for entertaining their application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 was obviously over. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj which is impugned in this case. 8. The criminal misc. case is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. 9. However, since the applicants are students prosecuting their studies in Jamshedpur as stated in the writ application which is also not controverted by the State and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that in the event the Petitioners appear before the Court and surrender their application for bail petition if filed, would be entertained and disposed of by the S.D.J.M., Rairangpur on the same day without delay. Final Result : Dismissed