Honble MITAL, J.–This petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anficipatory bail which was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra on 16.10.1997. (2). The relevant facts are that Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra took cognizance against the petitioners on a final report no. 44/95 P.S. Bhadra for offences under Secs. 342, 365, 323 and 392 I.P.C. The final report was submitted after investigation of F.I.R. no. 95/95 dated 7.9.1995 registered on the basis of the complaint filed by one Bhupendra Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In that complaint Bhupendra complainant made allegations that he is engaged in the transport business. On 3.5.1995 he was proceeding to his village Ninad from Bhadra in his vehicle No. HR 20 B 4526. Ramswaroop was driving this vehicle and when they reached at Bhadra by pass road at 9.30 p.m., the petitioners Ramkishan, ASI, Shakti Singh and Ramswaroop constables were found standing there with a private jeep. They got his vehicle stopped and asked the driver to produce the papers. Bhupendra Singh showed the papers relating to the vehicle. Ram Kishan, ASI said that the papers are in order but, he (complainant) will have to pay their entry fees, for which Bhupendra Singh refused by saying that he was going to his residence. However, the petitioners who were in drunken state insisted upon the complainant Bhupendra Singh to make the payment of Rs. 200/- otherwise to accompany them to Police Station. When Bhupendra Singh refused to do so, Ram Kishan, ASI gave up a slap on the face of the complainant. Ramswaroop and Shakti Singh constable caught hold of the complainant and started beating him by legs and feets. On the order of the Ram Kishan, ASI, Ramswaroop and Shakti Singh lifted him and put him in the vehicle. He was brought to Police Station. The petitioners also started beating him in the Police Station and forcibly took Rs. 2000/- from his pocket and also took other papers from his pocket. This was witnessed by two constables Laxman Singh and Rameshwar Lal who wanted to intervene but, the petitioners threatened them not to interfere in their activities. Bhupendra Singh was put behind the bar. Further allegations are that Shakti Singh and Ramswaroop caught Bhupendra by his hair and mouth and Ram Kishan forcibly dropped wine in order to fabricate false case against him. Bhupendra Singh was put behind the bar. Further allegations are that Shakti Singh and Ramswaroop caught Bhupendra by his hair and mouth and Ram Kishan forcibly dropped wine in order to fabricate false case against him. Laxman Singh and Rameshwar Lal Constables protested against all this. He was then freed on 4.5.1995. Thus, the petitioners committed offence under Secs. 382, 342, 365 & 323 IPC. (3). On the other hand, the petitioners contention is that when they were on petrol duty on 3.5.1995, the complainant Bhupendra was found in drunken state and making nuisence near Hissar-Bhadra by-pass barrier. He was arrested under Sec. 34 of the Police Act by the petitioners. He was also medically examined and handed over to SHO all the articles and Rs. 20 found on the person of Bhupendra at the time of arrest and the same were kept in the Malkhana of the Police Station. Subsequently, he was released on bail and on 5.5.1995 the articles were handed over back to him. Thereafter, Bhupendra has filed false private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra to make out a false defence in a case under Section 510 I.P.C. pending against him. He has stated totally false facts in order to make out his defence. The complaint which was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been thoroughly investigated by a Circle Officer and it has been found false and, therefore, final report has been submitted in the Court. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. It is vehemently argued that the relevant exntries in the Roznamcha and medical examination report have been submitted and the statements recorded during the investigation, clearly establish that a false case is being foisted upon the petitioners. Bhupendra Singh complainant was arrested under Section 34 IPC and all the articles which were found in `Zamatalashi were deposited in the Malkhana and while these articles and Rs. 20/- were refunded to him, he did not raise any objection about Rs. 2000/- alleged to have been snatched from him. Medical examination submitted by the complainant Bhupendra was obtained after 7 days on 7.5.1995. The petitioners are also Police Officers and Govt. servants. They have acted in the discharge of their duty and if they will be arrested in this false case, their career will be jeopardised. 2000/- alleged to have been snatched from him. Medical examination submitted by the complainant Bhupendra was obtained after 7 days on 7.5.1995. The petitioners are also Police Officers and Govt. servants. They have acted in the discharge of their duty and if they will be arrested in this false case, their career will be jeopardised. The medical report clearly shows that, Bhupendra was under alcoholic intoxication and some minor injuries were also found in the shape of abrasion. Some independent witnesses have supported the petitioners version. (5). Learned P.P. has opposed the petition and drew my attention to the statement of complainant Bhupendra Singh, Laxman Singh and Rameshwarlal. It is contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of aforesaid wit- nesses and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the peti- tioners. On the basis of the statements of above witnesses, on 7.6.1996 and after such a long delay the petition has been presented on 21.10.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew may attention to the affidavit filed during the investigation by Ramswaroop. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. I have also perused the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Circle Officer who has submitted final report in the Court. It will not be proper to express or comment on the merits of the case because a complaint is also pending against the complainant Bhupendra and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Taking in to consideration over all facts and circums- tances of the case, I deem it a fit case to allow this petition. (7). In the result, the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is hereby ordered that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra shall issue bailable warrants instead of non bailable warrants against the petitioners to procure their attendance in the Court in Criminal Case No. 149/96 State vs. Ram Kishan & Ors. If non bailable warrants have been issued, the same will be recalled and bailable warrants shall be issued for a sum as deemed proper by him. If non bailable warrants have been issued, the same will be recalled and bailable warrants shall be issued for a sum as deemed proper by him. The petitioners shall stipulate in the bail bonds to observe the following conditions; (i) Shall 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; (ii) Shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (8). This order shall be effective till the appearance of the petitioners in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate and for 15 days thereafter so that the peti- tioners may move regular bail applications.