JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 438, Criminal procedure code on behalf of Sohan Lal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Facts of the case are that on 3.3.1996 at about 12.30 p.m. Rekha Ram submitted a report to SHO, Ratangarh that his fields were situated on Western side of the way of Rampuriya in village Raursar. On the Southern side of his field, fields of Goru Ram were situated. In between the two fields there is a 'katani' way which was encroached by Goru Ram. Litigation in relation to encroachment was pending. Complainant had put a fence on the boundary of his fields. It narrowed the way of encroachment. The fence of the complainant was always damaged by vehicles passing through the way. Hence, the complainant had put some wooden pegs in the root of his fence. This annoyed Goru Ram and his sons. At about 11 in the night Sohan Lal was uprooting the pegs. It was seen by Amra Ram, complainant and his nephew went to the fields and found that a 'jhoonpa' was ablaze Sohan Lal was found sleeping nearby. It was also seen that uprooted pegs were being put to the fire near 'jhoonpa'. It resulted into a loss of Rs. 5,000/- Crime No. 54/96 under section 435, Indian Penal Code was registered. The applicant was granted bail by the Police. When after investigation brief was put before the APP. Police came to conclusion that a case under section 436 Indian Penal Code was made out. It is pertinent to note that the Police had already released the applicant for offence under section 435 Indian Penal Code which is bailable but when Section 436 Indian Penal Code was added, Police wanted to arrest the applicant. He ran to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh for anticipatory bail who rejected the prayer on 30.7.1996. Now he has knocked the doors of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the applicant was granted bail for offences Section. 435 Indian Penal Code he cannot be arrested without getting it cancelled either from the Sessions Judge or from the High Court. In support of his arguments, he has relied on Vijendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 431 . 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the applicant was granted bail for offences Section. 435 Indian Penal Code he cannot be arrested without getting it cancelled either from the Sessions Judge or from the High Court. In support of his arguments, he has relied on Vijendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 RCC 431 . Learned P.P. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that in Bala Bambaj v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RCC 476 it was held that as soon as offence is converted to non-bailable one, the provisions of Section. 436 Indian Penal Code do not apply. Therefore, his contention is that the applicant may be re-arrested by the Police. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the case diary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant should be released on anticipatory bail. I, therefore, accept this bail application and order that in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 54/1996 P.S. Ratangarh, applicant Sohan Lal s/o of Got u Ram be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. He shall be bound by the following conditions : (a) that he shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to anyone acquainted with facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Police or Court; (b) he shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer whanever required to do so during pendency of investigation; (c) he shall not leave India without prior permission of court. He shall obtain regular bail from a competent Court after challan in this case is filed.Application allowed *******