(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE pre-arrest bail order granted by the High Court appears to be not in accordance with law. The first respondent who approached the High Court apprehending arrest in the murder case did not have sufficient grounds for entertaining such apprehension. He is not an accused named in the FIR. The investigation is now in progress, and thus far the first respondent has not been made an accused. We heard learned counsel for the State who also submitted that as of today the first .respondent is not made an accused. However, he is not in a position to rule out the possibility of the first respondent being involved in the murder case because the materials are being collected to find out the real culprit of the murder. The order under Section 438 CrPC can be passed only if the High Court is satisfied that the petitioner has reason to believe that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. Without sufficient grounds for the petitioner to believe that he is going to be arrested in the murder case, he cannot apply for pre-arrest bail order under Section 438 of the Code. Thus the application made by the petitioner before the High Court was premature. At such a premature stage it was unnecessary for the High Court to consider the application under Section 438. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order without prejudice to the following: The right and power of the investigating agency to go into the depth of the matter and find out the real culprit and to proceed against him in accordance with law. (3) RIGHT of the respondent to resort to his remedy either under Section 438 or Section 439 at the appropriate stage. (4) WITH these observations these appeals are disposed of.