Judgment : M. Jeyapaul, J. The first respondent / first accused in Crl. A. No. 401 of 2005 prefers Crl. M.P. No. 1971 of 2006 and the fourth respondent/fourth accused in Crl. A. No. 401 of 2005 prefers Crl. M.P. No. 8423 of 2005, seeking recall of the non-bailable warrant issued as against them in Crl. M.P. No. 3995 of 2005. 2. The petitioners along with two other accused faced a trial for offences under Sections 8 (c) read with Sections 21, 25, 28 and 29 of the Essential Commodities and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. By a judgment dated 20.4.2005, the Special Court for Essential Commodities and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Coimbatore acquitted all the accused. As against such an order of acquittal, the complainant Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit,Chennai preferred an appeal. 3. Thecomplainant also filed Crl. M.P. No. 3995 of 2005, seeking issuance of non-bailable warrant to secure all the accused in this case invoking the provision under Section 390 of the Cr. P.C. This Court having thought it fit to admit the appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant Intelligence Officer, chose to issue non-bailable warrant as against the accused for arrest and production before the Special Court for Essential Commodities Nacrotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Coim-batore for remanding as contemplated under Section 390 of the Cr. P.C. 4. The petitioners who are the first and fourth accused seek recall of the warrant issued as against them with the undertaking that they will not abscond or evade any service. As the petitioners undertake to make themselves available during the pendency of the appeal, it is prayed that the warrant of arrest issued as against them may be recalled. 5. The de facto complainant Intelligence Officer would contend that the question of recalling the warrant of arrest issued by the High Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section390 of Cr. P.C. merits no consideration. At best, they can apply for bail on surrendering before the Court as per the directions of this Court. 6. The learnedsenior counsel appearing for the advocate on record for the petitioners would submit that Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates admitting the accused to bail also. 7. P.C. merits no consideration. At best, they can apply for bail on surrendering before the Court as per the directions of this Court. 6. The learnedsenior counsel appearing for the advocate on record for the petitioners would submit that Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates admitting the accused to bail also. 7. He would further submit that the petitioners who have been acquitted cannot be detained while they enjoy the presumption of innocence even at the appellate stage against the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned counsel for the Intelligence Officer/Special Public Prosecutor would submit that only after considering the gravity of the case, the antecedents of the petitioners and the material error committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused, this Court rightly invoked the powers under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. and issued warrant of arrest as against the petitioners. He would further submit that the application seeking recall of the non-bailable warrant does not arise at all. 9. The fourth accused Ramlal Banslal is found to have absconded on obtention of bail on medical grounds from the Special Court, Coimbatore. In response to the distress notice issued to the sureties, they paid the bond amount of Rs.1.5. lakhs and got themselves discharged. The fourth accused is found to have absconded for four long years. When he was re-arrested and remanded to judicial custody to face the trial of the case, the Special Court, Coimbatore had chosen to grant him bail again on 21.2.2005, in spite of the written objections filed by the complainant throwing to winds the checks and balance found under Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 10. This Court was pleased to cancel the said bail granted by the Special Court, Coimbatore by order dated 13.4.2005. 11. The fourth accused Ramlal Banslal has chosen to surrender before the Special Court, Coimbatore, on 18.4.2005 and waive his right of cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution during the period of his abscondence. The Special Court had returned a verdict of acquittal of all the accused on 24.2.2005, within two days from the date of surrender of the fourth accused Ramlal Banslal. 12. The Special Court had returned a verdict of acquittal of all the accused on 24.2.2005, within two days from the date of surrender of the fourth accused Ramlal Banslal. 12. This Court having adverted to the entire facts and circumstances of this case as stated supra, chose to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest as against these petitioners also solely for the purpose of committing them to jail as contemplated under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. 13. Section 390 of Cr. P.C. reads as follows: “Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal - When an appeal is presented under Section 378, the High Court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it or any subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail”. 14. Two options are contemplated under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. This Court can commit the accused to prison, pending disposal of the appeal when the accused is brought before it or before any Subordinate Court on execution of warrant issued against the accused or grant him bail. 15. This Court has chosen to commit him to prison in view of the peculiar circumstances emerged in this case. While so, the accused have no other option except surrendering before the Special Court, Coimbatore as per the mandates of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 3995 of 2005. The only course left open to the petitioners is to apply for bail, if so advised, after surrendering themselves before the said Court. 16. There is no dispute to the proposition that this Court which has issued warrant of arrest as against the accused who was tried and acquitted has all the powers to admit the accused to bail after his arrest or surrender. 17. A full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed in State of Punjab v. Bachittar Singh Lal Singh and others (1972 Cri.LJ 341) that the accused who are acquitted on capital charges are normally eligible to be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. The presumption as to innocence of the accused stands fortified on his acquittal by the trial Court, it has been further held. There is no dispute to the proposition that the petitioners are entitled to file an application for bail. The presumption as to innocence of the accused stands fortified on his acquittal by the trial Court, it has been further held. There is no dispute to the proposition that the petitioners are entitled to file an application for bail. This Court having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case, will have to determine such a bail application being filed by the petitioners. 18. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prema Bangar Swamy v. State of Maharashtra and others (2004 Cri.LJ 1296) decrying the illegal detention in custody of an accused even after acquittal, which amounts to unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life, holds that when an accused is arrested and brought before the subordinate Court as per the orders of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal, the Judge concerned ought to inform the accused that he has a right to apply for bail. 19. The petitioners right to apply for bail is not at all an issue before this Court. 20. The other authorities cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel on record for the petitioners would also deal with the valuable right of the accused to apply for bail when he was arrested and committed to prison as per the orders passed by the High Court under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. It is totally redundant to refer to those authorities. 21. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Koli Bhima Hari and others v. State of Gujarat (1994 Cri.LJ 1705) has observed in a case of bride burning, where acquittal was recorded on flimsy grounds as follows: “Where in an appeal against acquittal of the accused of the charges of bride burning, on finding that the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal were flimsy and not sustainable in view of evidence on record, the order of the High Court issuing non-bailable warrants against the accused, could not be said to be unwarranted in such a case, it could not be said that the accused who were acquitted by the trial Court would have to remain in jail for 5 to 7 years till the matter was finally disposed of, as it would be open for the accused to approach the Court for fixing early date of final hearing after the paper book was received and appeal became ready for hearing”. 22. 22. In the instant case also the trial Judge has chosen to record an order of acquittal when the fourth accused chose not even to challenge the testimony available on record. The accused who was throughout elusive has been released on acquittal within few days of his surrender. All these facts and circumstances have weighed the mind of the Court to issue non-bailable warrant as against the petitioners solely for the purpose of committing them to prison. The plea of the accused that he would have to remain in jail for quite a long years till the termination of the appeal has also been negatived in the aforesaid judgment. 23. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu and another AIR1976 SC 1750: 1976 (3) SCC1 has authoritatively pronounced that the exercise of power to issue non-bailable warrant under Section 390 of Cr.P.C, for the arrest and committal to prison of an accused does not offend the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 24. This Court has ample power under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. to issue warrant of arrest as against the accused in an appeal against acquittal. It is not necessary in all cases that the High Court while exercising power under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. should admit the accused to bail, when he is brought on execution of non-bailable warrant. It is always open to the accused to file an application for bail after the orders passed under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. was executed in letter and spirit. But the accused cannot short circuit the mandates provided under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. with a plea to recall the warrant of arrest issued as against the accused. When the necessity to adhere to such a course of action under Section 390 of Cr. P.C. which specifically confers power on the High Court to pass certain orders in the interest of justice has arisen, the accused cannot complain that his personal liberty has been deprived of on account of issuance of warrant of arrest even after an order of acquittal was recorded by the trial Judge. The warrant of arrest has been issued only in accordance with the Cr. P.C. established by law. The petitioners have not grounded the applications seeking recall of warrants on sustainable pleas. The contentions of the petitioners do not in fact merit consideration. The warrant of arrest has been issued only in accordance with the Cr. P.C. established by law. The petitioners have not grounded the applications seeking recall of warrants on sustainable pleas. The contentions of the petitioners do not in fact merit consideration. 25. Therefore, Crl. M.Ps.Nos. 8423 of 2005 and 1971 of 2006 stand dismissed.