JUDGMENT 1. - Following Meaningful questions related to Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.') arise for consideration in the instant Misc. Petition : i. What is the duration of anticipatory bail order? Whether filing of charge-sheet can circumvent the benefit conferred by Section 438 Cr.P.C.? ii. Whether anticipatory bail granted u/s. 438 continues to be in operation until conclusion of trial? iii. Whether the accused, who had already furnished bail bonds before the Police Officer u/s. 438(3) can still be asked by Magistrate to furnish fresh bonds at the time of filing the charge-sheet? iv. In what manner a Magistrate should proceed in a case triable exclusively by Court of Session wherein anticipatory bail is granted with a condition that the order shall remain in force till the expiry of some days after the charge-sheet is filed? 2. Contextual facts depict that a case u/ss. 363 & 366 IPC bearing FIR No. 278/2003 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bayana (Bharatpur). Apprehending arrest the petitioner approached this Court by filing application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4194/2003) u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. While allowing the application on 14.10.2003, this Court directed the SHO Police Station Bayana that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one sound surety in the like amount on the following conditions:- i. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; ii. that the petitioner 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 of any Police Officer; iii. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court; and iv. This order shall remain in force till the expiry of 15 days after the charge-sheet is filed. 3. After releasing the petitioner on bail and conclusion of investigation, the SHO concerned filed the charge-sheet in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bayana (for short `ACJM') for the offences u/ss. 363 & 366 IPC on 10.11.2003. The petitioner who was present in the Court, was required to file fresh bail bonds. 3. After releasing the petitioner on bail and conclusion of investigation, the SHO concerned filed the charge-sheet in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bayana (for short `ACJM') for the offences u/ss. 363 & 366 IPC on 10.11.2003. The petitioner who was present in the Court, was required to file fresh bail bonds. On furnishing the bail bonds learned ACJM released the petitioner on bail for a limited period of 15 days pursuant to the directions of the High Court issued in its order dated 14.10.2003. As the case was exclusively triable by Court of Session, learned ACJM posted it for 24.11.2003 to initiate committal proceedings. Application seeking exemption from personal appearance filed on behalf of the petitioner was taken up and rejected on 15.12.2003 and learned ACJM issued bailable warrant. Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner filed application seeking bail u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Bayana. Dismissing the application vide order dated 21.11.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that without filing bail application u/s. 437 Cr.P.C., provisions u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked. In such a situation, the petitioner has filed this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate directions in the matter. 4. The provision of anticipatory bail was introduced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under the old Code of 1898 there was no such provision. There were conflicting decisions of the High Courts. Some of the High Courts took the view that bail could be granted to a person against whom a report of an offence was made even though he was neither arrested nor detained and even in a case where a person was suspected of an offence for which he might be arrested by a Police Officer but the majority of the High Courts held that not to speak of Sessions Judge even High Court did not have inherent power to grant anticipatory bail by invoking Section 561-A of the Code. However Law Commission in the 41st report advocated the granting of power of anticipatory bail to Superior Courts. In its 48th report the Law Commission again endorsed the view expressed in the 41st report and Cl. However Law Commission in the 41st report advocated the granting of power of anticipatory bail to Superior Courts. In its 48th report the Law Commission again endorsed the view expressed in the 41st report and Cl. 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill 1970 for the first time provided the provision of anticipatory bail thus : "As recommended by the Commission, a new provision is being made enabling the superior Courts to grant anticipatory bail i.e. a direction to release a person on bail issued even before the person is arrested with a view to avoid the possibility of the person hampering the investigation special provision is being made that the Court granting anticipatory bail may impose such conditions as it thinks fit. These conditions may be that a person shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall not do anything to hamper investigation." The bail was referred to the Joint Committee of the Parliament, which made following observations : "The Committee is of the opinion that certain specific conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail should be laid down in the clause itself for being complied with before the anticipatory bail is granted. The clause has been amended accordingly." The clause so amended (Clause 436) was enacted as Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 438 reads as under:- 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.-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 Sessions for 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 Sessions makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions and such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including : i. a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by-a Police Officer as and when required; ii. When the High Court or the Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions and such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks 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 previous permission of the Court; iv. such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 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 decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1). 5. Bench of Hon'ble Five Judges of Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 had occasion to examine the amplitude of judicial discretion given by Section 438 Cr.P.C. and various other factors related to this provision. Their Lordships indicated that an anticipatory bail is pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation is respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction u/s. 438 is thereafter intended to confer conditional immunity from the `touch' or confinement contemplated by Section 46 of Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to meet the challenge of Art. 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. A direction u/s. 438 is thereafter intended to confer conditional immunity from the `touch' or confinement contemplated by Section 46 of Cr.P.C. It was further observed that in order to meet the challenge of Art. 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in support of which he seeks bail. Since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when not imposed by the legislature. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned.Seven golden principles propounded by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court may be summarised thus : i. The use of the expression `reason to believe' in Section 438(1) shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere `fear' is not `belief. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. Such belief must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively, because it is then alone that the Court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Specific events and facts must be disclose by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief. [Paras 35, 40 & 41] A blanket order i.e. an order which serves as a blanker to cover or protect any and every king of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had, should not generally be passed. [Paras 35, 40 & 41] A blanket order i.e. an order which serves as a blanker to cover or protect any and every king of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had, should not generally be passed. Such a blanket order is bound to cause serious interference with the functions of the police. [Paras 40 & 41] ii. If an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out of granting such reliefs. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned u/s. 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. [Para 36] iii. The filing of an FIR is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power u/s. 438. [Para 37] iv. Anticipatory bail can be granted even after an FIR is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. [Para 38] v. But the provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. [Para 39] vi. An order of bail can be passed u/s. 438(1) without notice to the Public Prosecutor. But notice should issue to the Public Prosecutor or the Government Advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. The ad interim order too must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage. [Para 42] vii. Regarding time-limit, if any, for anticipatory bail 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 u/s. 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonably short period after the filing of the FIR as aforesaid. But this need not he followed as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. [Para 42] [Underlining is mine] 6. But this need not he followed as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. [Para 42] [Underlining is mine] 6. In Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1463 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the case triable by Sessions Judge, normally Magistrate should grant bail binding the accused not only to appear before him but also to appear before Court of Session. In para 2 of the judgment it was observed as under:- "There is also another difficulty pointed out by Mr. Sibal and it is that in cases triable by the Court of Session, the practice followed is that when an accused is released on bail by the Magistrate, the bail is granted to him only during the pendency of the inquiry before the Magistrate, with the result that when the case is committed to the Court of Session, he is rearrested and brought before the Court of Session where he has to apply once again for fresh bail. This causes considerable inconvenience to the accused without any corresponding advantage so far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. This situation can however easily be avoided because there is a provision in Section 441 sub-section (3) of the Cr.P.C. under which bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the Court of Sessions, in which event, on committal he would not have to be re-arrested and brought before the Court of Session. It is also clear from Section 209, Cl. (b) of the Cr.P.C. that the Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail "during and until completion of trial" even in cases where the offence is triable by the Court of Session. We, therefore, feel that it would avoid hardship to an accused if the Magistrate, while releasing the accused on bail, requires execution of a bond- with or without surety, as the case may be, binding the accused not only to appear as and when required before him but also to appear when called upon in the Court of Session." 7. Then came a decision rendered by bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 667 . Then came a decision rendered by bench of Hon'ble three Judges of Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 667 . Incorporation of entire judgment appears necessary to understand the controversy involved in that case. The judgment reads as under: "1. The petition filed an application in the High Court being Criminal Application No. 2230 of 1995 u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and secured an ad interim anticipatory bail order which was to enure up to 26.9.1995, the High Court imposed certain "conditions, one of which was he will report at the Police Station every day till 25.9.1995. The petitioner says that he has complied with each and every condition imposed under that order. Be that as it may, it was an ad interim order which was to enure up to 26.9.1995. When the matter came up on that day for final disposal before the same learned Judge, he directed the petitioner to move a regular bail application before the Court which was in Session of the criminal case pending against him and observed that the bail application should be disposed of uninfluenced by the observations made in the earlier order of 13.9.1995. It is against this order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that this SLP is filed. We see no reason to entertain this petition. 2. Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when any person has reason to believe committed a non-bailable offence, the High Court or the Court of Session may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he,shall be released on bail and in passing that order, it may include such conditions having regard to the facts of the particular case, as it may deem appropriate. Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but that does not mean that the regular Court, which is to try the offender, is sought to be bypassed and that is the reason why the High Court very rightly fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and on the date of its expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular Court for bail. 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 made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. 3. It should be realised that an order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of a 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. 4. In the instant case, therefore, the High Court had followed the correct procedure and we see no reason to interfere. However, Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that since this Court had granted an interim order by which the duration of the order was extended he has not applied for bail before the regular Court. He may do so, if he so desires, within two weeks from today. The petition will stand disposed of accordingly." 8. Explaining the ratio indicated in Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 77 held as under:- [Para 7] "The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. Explaining the ratio indicated in Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 77 held as under:- [Para 7] "The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be borne in mind by the Courts concerned while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking cognizance or filing of a charge-sheet cannot by itself be construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. The Courts i.e. the Court of Session, High Court or Supreme Court have the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case required the Court to do so." 9. In Mohit Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr.L.J. 806 this Court while considering form No. 45 of schedule II to Cr.P.C. indicated that Form No. 45 of schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the form in which the bail bonds are to be submitted for attendance before the officer in-charge of Police Station or Court. The form is the same whether the bail bonds are submitted before the Police Officer or before the Court. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for asking an accused already released on bail by the Police Officer to furnish fresh bail bonds. The Bail bonds submitted before the Police Officer are for purposes of appearing before the Court and when this undertaking has already been given, fresh undertaking for the same effect is not to be asked for. Bail bonds should ordinarily be for appearance not only before the Court of Magistrate but also if the case is triable by the Court of Session, before the Court of Session unless there are particular reasons for not doing so. This view was reiterated by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kishan Gupal v. Deokinandan, I (1997) CCR 154 . 10. Bail bonds should ordinarily be for appearance not only before the Court of Magistrate but also if the case is triable by the Court of Session, before the Court of Session unless there are particular reasons for not doing so. This view was reiterated by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kishan Gupal v. Deokinandan, I (1997) CCR 154 . 10. In Satya Narayan & Ann v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(2) RCC 1426 , this Court while explaining the provisions of Secs. 438(1) & 438(3) held that in case the accused, who has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, is not present at the time of submission of the charge-sheet the Magistrate will issue a bailable warrant for securing the presence of such accused, otherwise, when the accused is present the Magistrate grant him bail without seeking any fresh bail application. 11. One can measure the quality of a nation's civilisation by the methods it uses in the enforcement of Criminal Law. Learned Judge Hand in Re Fried 161 F 2d 453, 465 (2d cir. 1947) said that "the protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the police and other enforcing officers is indeed a major interest in a free society; but so is the effective prosecution of crime, an interest which at times seems to be forgotten. Perfection is impossible, like other human institution criminal proceedings must be a compromise". Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nandinia Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025 quoted Lewis Mayers who stated thus:- "To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement machinery on the other is a parennial problem of statecraft. The pendulam over the years has swung to the right." The purpose for enacting the provision of anticipatory bail was to protect the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement machinery. The intention of the law-makers in introducing Section 438 was to relieve a citizen from unnecessary apprehension or disgrace of being detained in jail for some days before he can apply for bail in cases where he may have been implicated falsely by designing rivals, particularly so, in a case where the person concerned is not likely to absond. 12. The intention of the law-makers in introducing Section 438 was to relieve a citizen from unnecessary apprehension or disgrace of being detained in jail for some days before he can apply for bail in cases where he may have been implicated falsely by designing rivals, particularly so, in a case where the person concerned is not likely to absond. 12. An order u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. for release of person on bail before his arrest, can be limited in point of time. Under Section 438(2) the discretion conferred on Court regarding imposition of conditions and restrictions while granting anticipatory bail is very wide. Therefore, there is nothing in Section 438 which prevents the Court from imposing a condition limiting the direction for grant of anticipatory bail in point of time. The Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period but, as indicated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case, this need not be followed mechanically as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the anticipatory bail order in relation to a period of time. 13. Where no time limit is prescribed in the anticipatory bail order, is continues to be in operation until conclusion of trial unless cancelled by appropriate Court. Mere filing of charge-sheet cannot circumvent the benefit conferred by Section 438. 14. Coming to the ratio indicated in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (supra) I find that in that case High Court granted ad interim anticipatory bail which was to enure up to 26.9.1995. When the matter came up on that day for final disposal, the High Court directed the accused to move regular bail application before the Court which was in seisin of the criminal case pending against the accused and observed that the bail application should be disposed uninfluenced by the observations made in the ad interim anticipatory bail order. Against this order of the High Court that the accused filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Against this order of the High Court that the accused filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Dismissing the SLP Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated thus : "Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but that does not mean that the regular Court, which is to try the offender, is sought to be by passed and that is the reason why the High Court very rightly fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and on the date of its expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular Court for bail." In this back drop Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of the Supreme Court indicated that the anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the matter should be left to the regular Court. 15. But Constitution Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Hon'ble five Judges, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (supra) propounded that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when not imposed by the Legislature. The beneficial provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. 16. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh's case (supra) case was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (supra) and it was indicated that the object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. 17. That takes me to the question whether accused who had furnished bail bonds before the Police Officer pursuant to anticipatory bail order, can still be asked to furnish fresh bail bonds at the time of filing the charge-sheet? Sub-section (3) of Section 438 provides that the Police Officer shall release the person on furnishing the bail bonds as directed in the order issued under sub-section (1) of Section 438. By virtue of Section 476 Cr.P.C., Form No. 45 set forth in the second schedule is to be used for the purpose of Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. and bail bonds before the Police Officer should be filed in the proforma so prescribed. By virtue of Section 476 Cr.P.C., Form No. 45 set forth in the second schedule is to be used for the purpose of Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. and bail bonds before the Police Officer should be filed in the proforma so prescribed. Where a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence decides to issue warrant against the accused who is not before the Magistrate, he shall issue bailable warrant in conformity with the directions contained in the anticipatory bail order. When the accused appears before the Magistrate in compliance of the bailable warrant, he shall be asked to furnish the bail bonds in the proforma prescribed by Form No. 45. In a case where the bail bonds are submitted before the Police Officer u/s. 438(3) Cr.P.C. for attendance before the Police Station or Court, the said bonds shall form the part of charge-sheet for the purpose of using the same for securing attendance of the accused before the trial Judge. There is no provision in Cr.P.C. for asking an accused, already released on bail before the Police Officer, to furnish fresh bail bonds in the trial Court. The bail bonds submitted before Police Officer pursuant to the directions contained in anticipatory bail order, shall bind the accused even before Court of Session in view of sub-section (3) of Section 441 Cr.P.C. 18. In a case triable exclusively by Court of Session, wherein anticipatory bail is granted with a condition that the order shall remain in force till the expiry of some days, say 15 days, after the charge-sheet is filed, the Magistrate shall enure whether the accused was properly informed by the police about the date of filing the charge-sheet. The Magistrate, as far as practicable should accept the charge-sheet in such cases, in the presence of the accused. On filing the charge-sheet the Magistrate has to draw committal order and commit the case before the Court of Session before expiry of time limit indicated in the anticipatory bail order. The Magistrate has discretion to release the accused on bail "during and until completion of trial" u/s. 209 Cl. (b) of Cr.P.C., and in view of sub-section (3) of Section 441 Cr.P.C., bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the Court of Sessions. [Vide Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1463 ]. (b) of Cr.P.C., and in view of sub-section (3) of Section 441 Cr.P.C., bail can be granted to an accused so as to bind him to appear before the Court of Sessions. [Vide Free Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1463 ]. The order granting bail shall be passed in conformity with the anticipatory bail order and bail bonds already furnished in Form No. 45 shall be forwarded to the Court of Session alongwith other papers. 19. Learned ACJM Bayana in the instant case, has not properly followed the mandate of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and committed illegality in not committing the case to the Court of Session within the time limit prescribed in the anticipatory bail order. 20. I, therefore, allow the instant Misc. Petition and quash the order dated 15.12.2003. The bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall remain stayed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned ACJM Bayana on 3.3.2004. On the said date the learned ACJM Bayana shall commit the case and pass bail order u/Cl. (b) of Section 209 and sub-section (3) of Section 441 Cr.P.C. in conformity with the direction contained in the anticipatory bail order. The bail bonds submitted by the petitioner before the Police Officer, pursuant to the anticipatory bail order, in Form No. 45 shall be sent to the Court of Session. 21. The Registrar General is directed to place this order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and seek necessary directions to circulate it amongst the subordinate Judicial Officers of the State.Petition allowed. *******