JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — This is an application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. It is contended by Shri S. C. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner that at the instance of the accused in G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999, a case under Secs. 457, 427, 294, 379, 506/34, IPC has been instituted bearing Barbil P.S.Case No. 24 of 1999 which corresponds to G.R.Case No. 24 of 1999. Smt. Sangeeta is the widowed daughter of petitioner No. 1, who was married to one Ajoy, son of Bhagwan Das in the year 1995. Said Ajoy was a heart-patient, but such fact was concealed by his parents and for which Sangeeta was given in marriage to Ajoy who died on 20.12.1998. It is further submitted that Sangeeta was subjected to ill-treatment and mental torture by the in-laws, which became intense after death of her husband. In the circumstances, petitioner No. 1 decided to bring back Sangeeta and her child to Nawada, the place of living of the petitioners. Accordingly, it was proposed to Bhagwan Das for return of Streedhan properties of Sangeeta. Petitioner No. 1 sought mediation of well-wishers and friends at Barbil and for this purpose, he reached Barbil on 19.1.1999 and an agreement was arrived at in presence of the Bhadraloks for return of Streedhan of Sangeeta. It is stated that unfortunately at about 10.00 P.M. in the night, Shri Bhagwan Das and his hench¬men forcibly entered into the house of one Smt. Jasbir Kaur where the settlement had taken place. The persons were armed with deadly weapons and they assaulted the petitioners, snatched away a sum of Rs. 60,000/- a gold chain and Titan wrist-watch from petitioner No. 2. The house-hold furnitures were broken and the petitioners sustained injuries on different parts of their body, for which an FIR was lodged at 10.30 P.M. at Barbil Police Sta¬tion. On police requisition the petitioners were examined by the medical officer. The police conducted the investigation and having found a case, a charge-sheet has been filed by the Barbil Police under Secs. 452, 341, 323, 427/34, IPC. A copy of the FIR injury reports and charge-sheet in G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999 are also annexed to this petition. On police requisition the petitioners were examined by the medical officer. The police conducted the investigation and having found a case, a charge-sheet has been filed by the Barbil Police under Secs. 452, 341, 323, 427/34, IPC. A copy of the FIR injury reports and charge-sheet in G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999 are also annexed to this petition. It is submitted by Shri Lal that after the petitioners left Barbil on 20.1.1999, one Arjun Sahoo accused in G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999 filed an FIR against the petitioners at 3.30 P.M. making allegations against the petitioners of having committed offences under Secs. 457, 427, 294, 379, 506/34, IPC. Accordingly, Barbil P.S.Case No. 24 of 1999 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 24 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner. G.R.Case No. 24 of 1999, according to the petitioners, is the counter case to G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999 and has been instituted falsely. In the charge-sheet, the petitioners have been shown as absconders. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that knowing fully well that the petitioners belong to Nawada and Seikhpur in the State of Bihar, the police has shown them absconders inasmuch as the police had never required their presence in Barbil either for the FIR lodged by them in G.R.Case No. 19 of 1999 or in connection with G.R.Case No. 24 of 1999, the present case. It is submitted that after the police has submitted the charge-sheet before the Magistrate showing the petitioners absconders, by order dated 17.7.1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Babril has taken cognizance of the of¬fences under Secs. 457, 427, 294, 506/34, IPC but no process has been issued. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has raised the question of maintainability of the application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. contending inter alia that in a case where charge-sheet has been submitted, cognizance has been taken by the Magis¬trate and process has been issued, a petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. While refuting the stand of the State counsel with regard to issuance of process, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if cognizance has been taken but no process has been issued. It is revealed from the L.C.R. that on 17.7.1999, the learned Magistrate has taken cogni¬zance of the offence and by the order dated 18.8.1999, N.B.W. against the petitioners has been issued. It is revealed from the L.C.R. that on 17.7.1999, the learned Magistrate has taken cogni¬zance of the offence and by the order dated 18.8.1999, N.B.W. against the petitioners has been issued. Undisputedly, therefore, in the present case, on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned Magis¬trate has taken cognizance and issued N.B.W. against them. The question arises, as to whether the application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. would be maintainable on such circumstances, at this stage. Shri Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the High Court or the Court of Session has power to grant antici¬patory bail under Sec. 438(1), Cr.P.C. to a person even after the Criminal Court has taken cognizance of the offence and has issued process i.e. warrant of arrest, against the accused persons. Filing of charge-sheet by the police and issuance of warrant of arrest by the Magistrate, according to Shri Lal, do not put an end to exercise of power under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has referred to certain decisions of different High Courts in support of his contention. Shri Lal has referred to a decision of Madras High Court in the case of Natturasu and others v. The State : 1998 Cri.L.J. 1762. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail even after filing of the charge-sheet and issuance of warrants and merely issuance of warrant or taking of cognizance would not affect the power under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. The learned Judge quoting several decisions of various High Courts, has gone to the extent of taking a view that even at the committal stage, an accused can approach the High Court or the Court of Session since word ‘arrest’ would mean .... custody on committal provided he is not on bail earlier and also at a stage when a person is impleaded as an accused under Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. (emphasis supplied). I am respectfully not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge since in my opinion such a view would offend the provisions and the very concept of an anticipatory bail contemplated under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. 3. I am respectfully not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge since in my opinion such a view would offend the provisions and the very concept of an anticipatory bail contemplated under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. 3. The next decision relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Sheikh Khasim Bi v. The State, AIR 1986 AP 345 . The Full Bench has taken a view that the High Court and the Court of Session has power to grant anticipatory bail under Sec. 438(1) to a person after the Criminal Court has taken cognizance in a case and has issued process viz., warrant of arrest against that ac¬cused person, inasmuch as Sub-sec. (3) of Section 438, Cr.P.C. does not in any manner restrict the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail, but on the other hand, it only contains the procedural aspect that is necessary to give effect to the order of anticipatory bail passed under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 438 and the manner in which it would be given effect to. However, the High Court or the Court of Session may not be inclined to grant bail keeping in view the fact that the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued processes, but mere non-exercise of such power does not mean lack of jurisdiction. The Bench took the view that once the charge-sheet is filed and the warrant is issued, it indicates that the matter has reached a stage that arrest is a certainty and there is no question of the person still having only ‘reason to believe’ that he may be arrested. Filing of a charge-sheet and issuance of warrant are certainly the grounds which make the person not only to believe that he would be ar¬rested but also to move the Courts under Sec. 438(1), Cr.P.C. The aforesaid decision in essence, in my considered view contemplates two propositions : (i) that the Courts may not be inclined to grant bail in a situation where the Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process, but mere non-exercise of such power would not mean lack of jurisdiction; (ii) the application under Sec. 438(1), Cr.P.C. can be made at any stage, of a criminal proceeding. The aforesaid decision was noticed in the case of Mansa Murmu and another v. State of Orissa : (1989) 2 OCR 439 and the Court did not agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 4. The view of this Court is, however, contrary to the deci¬sion in the aforesaid cases. This Court in Bhramar alias Bhramar¬bar Mohapatra and another v. State : 51 (1981) CLT 391 held that the person who is an accused and is not under any restraint and apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence may move the Court of Session or the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438(1) of the Code, but it is not applicable to an accused against whom the Court has already issued process after taking cognizance of the offence. Similarly, in Mohan Behera and two others v. State : 59 (1985) CLT 110, this Court has held that anticipatory bail under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. is not to be granted if the Magistrate has already taken cognizance and issued process. In the case of Mansa Murmu (supra), while considering the stage of grant of anticipatory bail the learned Judge held that the application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. is maintainable at a stage prior to arrest when a person apprehends arrest in some non-bailable offences, but such an application is not maintainable after the arrest or production before the Court or after warrant of arrest has been issued. It has been observed that if the Magistrate has already taken cognizance of an offence and has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest, the stage for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session for antic¬ipatory bail is already over. Thus, the settled view of this Court is that an application under Sec. 438(1), Cr.P.C. is not maintainable after the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process against the accused person. 5. The present decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Skaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1042 is of considerable help in the question involved in the case. 5. The present decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Skaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1042 is of considerable help in the question involved in the case. The apex Court held : “The petitioner xxx xxx That is the correct procedure to follow because it must be realised that when the Court of Session or the High Court is granting anticipatory bail, it is granted at a stage when the investigation is incomplete and, therefore, it is not informed about the nature of evidence against the alleged offender. It is, therefore, necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has been made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. It should be realised that an order of antic¬ipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature as for example murder and, therefore, it is essential that the duration of that order should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which is expected to deal with the offence. It is that Court which has then to consider whether, having regard to the material placed before it, the accused person is entitled to bail.xxx xxx" (Emphasis supplied) The observation in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case.The apex Court observed that the anticipatory bail under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. is granted at a stage when the investigation is incom¬plete and therefore, it is not informed about the nature of offence against the alleged offender and therefore it should be for a limited period and that the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of materials placed before it, after the investigation is made or charge-sheet is submitted. 6. 6. In view of the decision of the apex Court and of this Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs, there is no escape from the conclusion that the powers of the Court of Session and of the High Court under Sec. 438(1), Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a party at a stage when there is reason to apprehend that he may be arrested in respect of accusation for a non-bailable offence when the investigation is in progress and the police has neither completed its investigation nor filed the charge-sheet. The Magistrate neither has taken cognizance nor issued process against the person. Once this is done, the stage of invoking the power of the Court of Session or of High Court is over. 7. The lower Court records reveal that the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the charge-sheet has already taken cognizance of the offence and has issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. Thus, the stage after making an application for invoking the power of this Court under Sec. 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is over and hence, the petition is not maintainable in law. However, as submitted by Sri Lal, the petitioner may surrender in the Court of the learned Magistrate and apply for bail in which event, the learned Magistrate shall do well in expeditiously disposing of the matter in its proper perspective, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of accordingly. The L.C.R. may be transmitted back immediately. Misc. Case disposed of.