JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed against the order dated 19th July, 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2969/2010 arises out of the complaint No. 821/2010 for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 2. In this case, a complaint was filed by one Lakhan Singh on 16th July, 2007 with the accusation that the accused petitioner had cheated him. The allegation against the petitioner is that while executing an agreement to sell, he had received an amount of Rs. 21,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the accused petitioner failed to get the title of the property transferred in his name. On having considered the complaint and the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Court took cognizance vide its order dated 29th February, 2008 and issued process by way of non-bailable warrant, at the first instance. Therefore, the petitioner moved a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, before the is learned Court below. 3. The pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur primarily on the ground that in cases where the matters are pending before the Court, the provision under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable. Learned trial Court has placed reliance on the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 2009 (3) 1945 . 4. It is a settled principle of law that an application for pre-arrest bail is maintainable in case where non-bailable warrants have been issued by the learned trial Court after taking cognizance. As back as in the year 1979, a question was referred before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nand Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 RLW 477 that: "Whether it is open to an accused person to apply for bail under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code in a case where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and has passed order for the issue of warrant for the arrest of the accused person?" 5. The said question, after thoroughly taking into consideration the relevant provision of the Act as well as the case law, the learned Division Bench had answered the question in the following terms: "Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked even when the arrest of a person is certain in execution of warrant of arrest issued by a Magistrate after taking cognizance of a non-bailable offence against him." Further it was laid down that: "It does not affect the powers of the Court to grant or refuse bail or anticipatory bail to such person. Even the person against whom cognizance has been taken by a Magistrate and a warrant of arrest in the first instance has been issued for his arrest may be released on bail under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate himself or under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code by the High Court or the Sessions Judge after he appears or is arrested or brought before the Court. Hence, the mere taking of cognizance against a person and issuing a warrant for his arrest does not debar the High Court or the Sessions Judge to consider the application of such person for anticipatory bail if such person genuinely apprehends that he is likely to be arrested in execution of the warrants, and, if the High Court or the Court of Session is satisfied after applying its mind to the materials available that if anticipatory bail is refused an irreparable wrong or injustice may result which it is desirable to avoid." 6. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the High Court in the case of Chhiter v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLR 1078 . 7. In a recent judgment of Bharat Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., VI (2003) SLT 135 : 2004 (1) RCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held, in para 6, as follows: "From the perusal of this part of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a suitable case either by the Court of Sessions, High Court or this Court even when cognizance is taken or charge-sheet is filed. The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention-The fact, that a Court has either taken cognizance of the complaint or the Investigating Agency has filed a charge-sheet, would not, by itself, in our opinion, prevent the concerned Courts from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. 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 concerned Courts while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail and the fact of taking cognizance or filing of charge-sheet cannot by themselves by construed as a prohibition against the grant of anticipatory bail. In our opinion, the Courts i.e. the Court of Session, High Court or this Court has the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offence under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code even when cognizance is taken or charge-sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the Court to do so." 8. In other words, in a case where a Court has taken cognizance by a complaint or Investigating Agency has filed a charge-sheet would not by itself prevent the concerned Courts from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases. 9. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid principle of law, I deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 10. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.The S.H.O. /I.O. /Arresting Authority, Police Station, Shipra Path Mansarovar, Jaipur in complaint No.821/2010 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Kundan Lal Mandhnani s/o Shital Das, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by 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 or any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. A copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur.Application allowed. *******