JUDGMENT : A.P. Shrivastava, J. This is first ap­plication under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant against the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in ST No. 210/08. (2) The applicant, earlier, was arrested by Police Station Hujrat Kotwali, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 of IPC and was enlarged on bail. By the impugned or­der, one application filed on behalf of the applicant for exempting the appearance before the court was rejected. The court ob­served that the witness was present and on the last date also the applicant was not present. The presence of the applicant was required for identification of the victim, therefore, the application for exemption was rejected and the court forfeited the bail bonds of the applicant and issued non-bail-able warrant. (3) The question for consideration arose whether in such circumstances the benefit of provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicant? (4) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that due to accident, the applicant could not appear before the court and as the non-bail-able warrant has been issued by the court, therefore, there is apprehension of arrest. In support of his contention, he re­lied on various citations out of which full bench decision of this Court is referred in the case of Nirbhay Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1995 MPLJ 296 in which the ratio is decided in paras 14 and 15 which are as follow: "14. In our opinion, the conflict between an order of anticipatory bail and non-bailable warrant has to be met in a prag­matic manner striking a balance be­tween individual's right to personal freedom and the invocation of right of the police and the procedure required to be followed by a Magistrate. Where an order of anticipatory bail is passed after issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest by a Magistrate, the duty of the police officer entrusted with execution of the warrant would be to arrest the person and produce him before the Magistrate who thereupon shall deal with the accused as required by the order of anticipatory bail. 15. Where an order of anticipatory bail is passed after issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest by a Magistrate, the duty of the police officer entrusted with execution of the warrant would be to arrest the person and produce him before the Magistrate who thereupon shall deal with the accused as required by the order of anticipatory bail. 15. In view of what we have indicated above, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that an appli­cation under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code would be maintainable even after the Magistrate issued pro­cess under Section 204 or at the stage of committal of the case to the Sessions Court or even at a subsequent stage, if circumstances justify the invocation of the provision. This is not to say that the jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is to be freely exercised with­out reference to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged, the possible sentence which may be ultimately imposed, the possibility of inference with the investigation or the witnesses and public interest. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan." (5) He has also relied on Yogendra Singh v. State of M.P. through P.S. Ucchehara, Distt. Satna, 2000 (1) MPHT 409 and Arun Kumar v. State of M.P., 2001 (4) MPLJ 449. It is submitted that both these judg­ments are of the same Bench. (6) He also relied on Yuvraj Gaud v. State of M.P. and another, 2004 (3) MPLJ 40 . In case of Yuvraj Gaud (supra) the point for issue was different. In that case, the accused charged under Sec­tions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, seeking anticipatory bail. The accused was summoned initially through bailable warrant in a private complaint case and subsequently by a warrant of arrest. Accused was a Government servant. Looking to the allegations in the private complaint, second application for grant of anticipatory bail allowed on certain conditions. (7) Now, I will discuss the case of Yogendra Singh (supra) and Arun Kumar (Supra). The accused was summoned initially through bailable warrant in a private complaint case and subsequently by a warrant of arrest. Accused was a Government servant. Looking to the allegations in the private complaint, second application for grant of anticipatory bail allowed on certain conditions. (7) Now, I will discuss the case of Yogendra Singh (supra) and Arun Kumar (Supra). In the case of Yogendra Singh (su­pra), it was observed by this court that an application for anticipatory bail in respect of accusation of a non-bail-able offence, by a person who was already released on bail or anticipatory bail in respect of accusation of that very non-bail-able offence, is not main­tainable, when warrant of arrest is issued by a Court against him as he defaulted in appearance while on bail or anticipatory bail. Such person may take steps under Sec­tion 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for recall/cancellation of warrant or he may assail the order issu­ing warrant against him before the higher courts. (8) In the case of Yogendra Singh (supra), the full bench decision of this court reported in Nirbhay Singh (supra) has also been dis­cussed in detail in para 3, 7, and 8. The court also observed that there are stages wherein an accused can apprehend arrest. These would conceptually engulf 'subsequent stages' but would not cover a stage 'where an accused, who has availed the privilege of anticipatory bail or regular bail and fails to appear before the Court on the dates fixed for trial and in a way abuses his liberty. Regarding the stage, in case of Natturasu and others v. The State, 1998 Cr. L.J. 1762 (Mad.) in which it is ob­served as under: 92. The above five contingencies involve different stages. As seen earlier, once the person accused of is released on an­ticipatory bail or on bail at one stage, the operation of the bail continues till the conclusion of trial. Therefore, the person, who is already on bail or an­ticipatory bail, cannot be entitled to apply for a fresh anticipatory bail in re­spect of the same accusation, in other stages. 93. For instance, if a person, who is al­ready on bail, did not appear before the Court and that therefore, the Court issues warrant of arrest, then the said person will certainly have the appre­hension of arrest. 94. 93. For instance, if a person, who is al­ready on bail, did not appear before the Court and that therefore, the Court issues warrant of arrest, then the said person will certainly have the appre­hension of arrest. 94. But, in such a situation, the accused is not entitled to file an application for anticipatory bail, because he is already on bail or anticipatory bail in respect of the accusation of non-bailable of­fence. He shall, in such circumstance, have to take steps to recall the war­rant. 95. Therefore, the application for antici­patory bail would not deal with the situation, wherein the accused had ap­peared before the Court, in relation to the case in which he already obtained the bail. 96. In other words, the application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. being dealt with only relates to the apprehension of ar­rest for the accusation of non-bail-able offence only one. (9) In case of Arun Kumar (supra), the matter was different. It was observed that when Magistrate takes cognizance in re­spect of non-bailable warrant and even issues summons, the accused would be en­titled to move competent court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same application would be maintainable. (10) In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., AIR 2005 SC 1057 it was observed by the Apex Court that the object which is sought to be achieved by Section 438. The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are rea­sonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to other­wise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised under Section 438. The use of ex­pression 'reason to believe' showing that the apprehension that he may be arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Such grounds must be capable of being examined. (11) There is a difference that a person is apprehending arrest in a case when an of­fence is registered by a police station or cog­nizance is taken by the court and in case of breach of terms of bond and in lieu of that a non-bail-able warrant has been issued. Such grounds must be capable of being examined. (11) There is a difference that a person is apprehending arrest in a case when an of­fence is registered by a police station or cog­nizance is taken by the court and in case of breach of terms of bond and in lieu of that a non-bail-able warrant has been issued. (12) In this case, from perusal of the im­pugned order, it appears that the applicant could not appear on the date of appearance in the case fixed for evidence and on the previous date also he remained absent. Due to this, the trial of the case could not be pro­ceeded due to want of identification and therefore, the court rejected the application for exemption of appearance and issued the non-bail-able warrant. (13) It appears that the applicant pur­posely avoided to appear in the court so that the case may be adjourned at evidence stage. In this case, the accused was already granted bail and he did not appear before the court therefore, the court issued non-bail-able warrant which is distinguishable on the fact that when the court takes cogni­zance and issues non-bail-able warrant of arrest to appear before the court in that case he has apprehension for arrest and was not on bail prior to the passing of the order of the court. (14) Hence, in view of the above discus­sion and relying on the earlier decision of this court in Yogendra Singh (supra) in which Nirbhay Singh (supra) was discussed, in the present case the applicant was re­leased on bail and thereafter non-bailable warrant was issued by the trial court after forfeiting his bail bonds. He has a remedy to approach the court for recalling the or­der or may avail other remedy available at law. (15) Therefore, in view of the above dis­cussion, it is not a fit case in which the provision of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is to be ex­tended to the applicant and hence, the ap­plication is rejected. However, it is further directed that if the applicant is brought be­fore the court in compliance of the non-bail-able warrant, or if he surrenders before the court and moves an application for bail, the court shall dispose of the same on the same day. (16) With such observation, Mere stands dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.