L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed unders. 438 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case where charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued. ( 2 ) FROM the record it appears that S. P. D. No. 3/2000 has been registered in the Court of the learned Addl. C. J. M.-cum-Special C. J. M. (C. B. I.), Bhubaneswar for the offences alleged to have been committed under Ss. 120-B/292/343/254/366/376 read with S. 511 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and two others. The question raised before this Court is with regard to maintainability of the application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. when charge-sheet has already been submitted and warrant has been issued. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if charge-sheet is submitted and warrant of arrest is issued whenever there is an apprehension in the mind of the accused that he may be arrested in connection with the case, an application for anticipatory bail under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. can be maintained. In order to answer the question raised it is necessary to refer to S. 438 of the Cr. P. C. which is quoted below :" (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including - (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person 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; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of S. 437, as if the bail were granted under that Section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decided that a warrant should issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in confirmity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1 ). "the same question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Mohan Debera v. State (1985) 59 Cut LT 110. This Court while considering S. 438, Cr. P. C. explained three stages as envisaged in the section itself. The Court observed as follows :"it would be seen that S. 438 of the Code envisages three stages. Sub-section (1) enables a person for making an application for anticipatory bail when he reasonably apprehends his arrest in respect of accusation of commission of a non-bailable offence. Sub-section (2) enumerates the condition which may be imposed by the Court while making an order under S. 438 (1 ). Sub-section (3) pertains to the execution or implementation of the order passed under sub-section (1 ). The first part of sub-section (3) mandates the police officer to release the person on bail pursuant to an order made under sub-section (1 ). Sub-section (3) pertains to the execution or implementation of the order passed under sub-section (1 ). The first part of sub-section (3) mandates the police officer to release the person on bail pursuant to an order made under sub-section (1 ). The second part of this sub-section obligates the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence to issue bailable warrant only instead of non-bailable warrant against the person in whose favour an order under sub-section (1) has been passed. Sub-section (3) would come into play only after an order under sub-section (1) has been passed in favour of a person. If a Magistrate has already taken cognizance of an offence and has issued a non-bailable warrant, the stage for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session for an order for anticipatory bail is already over. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case is accepted, it would also mean that if a person has already been arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Magistrate who has taken cognizance of an offence and is later released on bail and then jumps bail and the Magistrate again issues a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him, that person may approach the Court for anticipatory bail. Section 438 of the Code certainly does not envisage such a position. The petitioners had already been arrested in the course of investigation and had been released on bail by the investigating agency. After submission of charge-sheet, non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners by the learned sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate after applying his mind and taking cognizance. In such a case, an application under S. 438 of the Code would not be competent. "on consideration of the above three stages envisaged in S. 438 of the Cr. P. C. this Court further observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted after charge-sheet has been submitted and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued. This Court in a recent decision reported in (2000) 18 OCR 81 (Ashok Kumar v. State of Orissa) took into consideration the aforesaid decision rendered in the case of Mohan Behera (supra) as well as some other decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and took the similar view. This Court in a recent decision reported in (2000) 18 OCR 81 (Ashok Kumar v. State of Orissa) took into consideration the aforesaid decision rendered in the case of Mohan Behera (supra) as well as some other decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and took the similar view. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some decisions and on examination, I found that the decisions relied to the principles to be followed in an application under S. 438, Cr. P. C. The question raised in this case has not been answered in the said judgments. ( 4 ) IN view of the settled position of law as stated above, I have no reason to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the order passed by the Addl. C. J. M. cum-Special C. J. M. (CBI), Bhubaneswar that on 28-9-2001 charge-sheet had been submitted for the offences mentioned above and since the present petitioner was absconding non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him. I, therefore, hold that the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. case is dismissed. Application dismissed.