Judgment D. S. Dhaliwal, J. 1. A process has been issued for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the three petitioners herein in a criminal complaint filed by one Seikh Humaun on the allegations that after obtaining signatures of the complainant on certain blank forms and papers, the petitioners obtained a loan of Rs.11,200/- in the name of the complainant, for installation of a Pumping set. The complainant came to know about this fact on 1st December, 1995 when he happened to visit the Bank and was told that a sum of Rs.11,200/- was due against him as loan. He then filed a complaint on 30-1-1996. 2. Apprehending their arrest, petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions judge, Katihar which was rejected on short ground that the application was not maintainable as process has already been issued against the petitioners by the Trial Court. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while holding the anticipatory bail application as not maintainable the learned Sessions judge relied upon certain observations of the Apex Court in Salauddin Abdul samad Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra, air 1996 Supreme Court 1542. Counsel maintained that the question as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after issuance of process was not in issue in Salauddins case (supra ). In the said case anticipatory/bail was allowed to the petitioner only for a limited period and after the expiry of that period the court granting anticipatory bail directed the petitioner therein to move a regular bail application before the court which was in seisin of the case pending against him. It appears that being aggrieved of the limited duration of the bail order the petitioner filed Special leave Petition before the Supreme court which was dismissed with the observations that anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and that after the expiry of the duration the matter should be left to the regular court. Counsel maintained that it has no- where laid down in the said authority that application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable after process has been issued. Counsel maintained that it has no- where laid down in the said authority that application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable after process has been issued. Counsel submitted that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after issuance of process also and in support of his contention Counsel relied upon a case Bajranglal Agarwal and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1989 PLJR 767 and a division Bench case of Punjab and haryana High Court Puran Singh V/s. Ajit Singh and another, reported in 1985 criminal Law Journal 897. 5. After considering the contentions, I find myself in agreement with the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V/s. State of punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632, a Constitution Bench of the Apex court while dealing with various aspect of the anticipatory bail application has held that operation of an order passed under Sec.438 (1) should not necessarily be limited in point of time. The Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of an FIR in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may in such cases be directed to obtain an order of bail under Sec.437 or 439 of the Code as the case may be. It has been further held that normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. In Salauddins case (supra) as the period of anticipatory bail was limited by the court granting bail itself, the apex Court approved the order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The point as to whether an anticipatory bail is maintainable after cognizance of the offence has been taken and a process has been issued was not in issue in the said case. 6. The provisions of Sec.438 of the Code were introduced for the first time on the recommendation of the law Commission in its 41st report, in the present Code intending to provide for a further remedy in respect to the relief of bail to the persons not actually in custody but at a stage prior thereto apprehending their arrest in a criminal case at the hands of the Police or in execution of a warrant issued by a court. Sec.438 of the Code dealing with the relief of anticipatory bail is in three parts. Sec.438 of the Code dealing with the relief of anticipatory bail is in three parts. Sub-section (1) of Section 438 is the main enabling provision which is independent to the other two sub-sections. It gives power to the court of Session and the High Court to direct the release of a person, apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence on bail, in the event of his arrest. Sub-section (2) simply relates to imposition of certain conditions upon the person by the Court who has been ordered to be released on anticipatory bail. Sub-section (3) relates to the procedure to be followed by the person to whom direction is issued pursuant to the order passed under sub-section (1 ). This sub-section cannot be taken to be independent of sub-Section (1) and is in fact subservient thereto. Sub-section (1) of Sec.438 Cr. P. C. does not contain any restriction on entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail after cognizance of the offence has been taken or a process has been issued. In Puran Singhs case (supra)relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners, a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Code does not cease with the issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrant against the applicant. The jurisdiction to entertain such an application rather arises as and when there is reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioner at the hands of the Police or in execution of a process issued by the Court. In a complaint case like present one, there is no question of there being any apprehension of arrest unless and until cognizance of the offence is taken and the process is issued against the accused. Therefore, if the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such an application on the ground of issuance of process is ousted the provisions of anticipatory bail will be rendered nugatory in respect of the accused in cases instituted on a criminal complaint as an accused person cannot be deemed to be aware of the filing of the criminal complaint against him unless and until a process is issued against him. This application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, held to be maintainable. 7. As regards merits, I find that the case against the petitioners is mainly based on documents. This application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, held to be maintainable. 7. As regards merits, I find that the case against the petitioners is mainly based on documents. There is a delay of about two months in filing of the complaint and trial is likely to take a sufficiently long period. 8. Having regard to all this, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners detained in lock up after their arrest. This petition for anticipatory bail is, therefore, allowed and a direction is issued to the Trial Court (Sri Md. Naimullah, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Katihar) to release the petitioners S. K. Alim alias Md. Alim, kamayan Yadav and Sikandar Sah on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender in court in compliance to the process issued against them in complaint case No.69/96, provided the petitioners furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.7,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the aforesaid court. 9. Petitioners are, however, directed not to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. Order Accordingly.