Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 702 (ALL)

RAJESH TALWAR v. CBI, DELHI

2011-03-18

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) has been moved by the applicant Dr. Rajesh Talwar with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 01 of 2001, (New No. 130 of 2011) C.B.I. v. Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. P.S. SCB (C.B.I.) Delhi by which bailable warrant of Rs. 20,000/- has been issued against the applicant. 2. The facts in brief of this case are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the applicant on 16.5.2008 at 7.10 a.m. at P.S. Sector-20 district Gautam Budh Nagar vide case crime No. 8970969508 in respect of the incident allegedly occurred in the night of 15/16.5.2008 at unknown time inside the house of the applicant in which Km. Arushi, aged about 14 years, the daughter of the applicant was killed, the suspected accused was Hemraj, the servant of the applicant. 3. The post-mortem examination of the deceased Km. Arushi was conducted on 16.5.2008 at 12 O’ Clock Noon. According to the post-mortem examination report, she had sustained four ante-mortem injuries in which injury Nos. 1 and 3 were lacerated wounds and injury Nos. 2 and 4 were incised wounds, the cause of death was shock due to Hypovolemia. The viscera was preserved and sent for examination to R/O poisoning. Thereafter, on 17.5.2008 the dead body of the suspected accused Hemraj, servant of the applicant, was also recovered, his post-mortem examination was conducted on 12.5.2008 at 9.00 p.m. According to the post-mortem examination report, he had sustained 7 ante-mortem injuries in which injury No. 1 was abrasion, injury Nos. 2,4,5 were abraded contusions, the injury No. 3 was incised wound, and injuries Nos. 6 and 7 were lacerated wounds, the cause of death was ‘shock due to Hypovolemia caused by ante-mortem injuries’. The viscera was preserved. 2,4,5 were abraded contusions, the injury No. 3 was incised wound, and injuries Nos. 6 and 7 were lacerated wounds, the cause of death was ‘shock due to Hypovolemia caused by ante-mortem injuries’. The viscera was preserved. After lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R. investigation was entrusted to the local police, subsequently, vide notification No. 1973-VI-G-3-2008-15(48) P./2008 Lucknow dated 29.5.2008, the investigation was transferred to C.B.I. by the State Government of U.P., pursuant to that notification dated 19.5.2008, the matter was taken up by the C.B.I. and again F.I.R. was registered as case crime No. 695 of 2008-R.C.-1(S)2008/S.C.R.-III/C.B.I. New Delhi and has been investigated by the C.B.I. The applicant was arrested on 23.5.2008 by the local police, he was produced in the Court of learned magistrate concerned on 24.5.2008. On 25.5.2008, he was remanded to the police custody for 3 days, which was extended till 30.5.2008. Thereafter, the applicant was sent to judicial custody on 30.5.2008. The judicial remand was extended from time to time on the request of the investigating officer of the C.B.I. 4. During the pendency of the judicial custody, applicant moved a bail application, the same was rejected by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) on 10.6.2008 after considering the merits of the case. Thereafter, the I.O. of the C.B.I. filed an application dated 11.7.2008 under Sections 169 Cr.P.C. mentioning therein that the applicant was arrested on 23.5.2008 subsequently, following expiry of his police remand, he was remand to judicial custody up to 11.7.2008 vide order dated 2.7.2008. The investigation of this case is still pending and all the facts and circumstances are being investigated,the role of the applicant was thoroughly investigated regarding the aforesaid crime, during investigation poly report test, phychological analysis test of the applicant was conducted and no deception have been found in the test reports. Clothes shoes, and finger palm/foot print of the applicant were forwarded/submitted to C.F.S.L. New Delhi for examination of expert opinion, the Scientific examination result could not connect the applicant Rajesh Talwar will the crime, in view of the above circumstances further judicial custody of accused Rajesh Talwar, is not required in the interest of justice, therefore, judicial custody remand of the accused Rajesh Talwar may not be extended. The application dated 11.7.2008 filed by the C.B.I. has been allowed by the Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I. Ghaziabad on 11.7.2008 by releasing the applicant from the judicial custody on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5 lacs and two sureties of the like amount. In compliance of the order dated 11.7.2008, the applicant was released from jail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties as required. The investigation was carried on by the C.B.I. who after completing it, submitted the closure report dated 29.12.2010 before the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad with a prayer that in view of the shortcoming in the evidence mentioned in the closure report, it was felt that sufficient evidence was not available to prove the offence under Section 302/201 I.P.C. against the applicant Dr. Rajesh Talwar beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, it was prayed that the case may be allowed to be closed, due to insufficient evidence. Against the closure-report dated 29.12.2010 a detailed protest petition date 28.1.2011 was filed before the Special Magistrate C.B.I. by the applicant with a prayer to reject the closure report filed by the C.B.I. under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. wherein the C.B.I has sought to close the case and the order of further investigation may be passed so that the culprits involved in this heinous crime may be apprehended and may be tried. Thereafter the learned Special Judicial magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad after hearing counsel for the parties rejected the closure report filed by the C.B.I. in exercise of powers conferred under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicant and co-accused Dr. Noopur Talwar for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 IPC and the date of their appearance was fixed on 28.2.2011. On 28.2.2011 the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to exempt him from the personal appearance. Application dated 28.2.2011 was rejected by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad and issued bailable warrant of Rs. 20,000/- fixing 22.3.2011 as the next date. The impugned order dated 28.2.2011 issuing the bailable warrant has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Application dated 28.2.2011 was rejected by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad and issued bailable warrant of Rs. 20,000/- fixing 22.3.2011 as the next date. The impugned order dated 28.2.2011 issuing the bailable warrant has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, counsel for the applicant, Sri N.I. Jafri and Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for the C.B.I. and Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State of U.P. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was attacked by one Utsav Sharma on 25.1.2011, he sustained grievous injuries, the applicant had undergone several surgeries, he remained in the intencive care unit of the Indraprastha Apolo Hospital from 25.1.2011 to 28.1.2011, thereafter he was shifted to private ward and discharged on 1.2.2011. He was not in a position to carry out his daily activities by himself but the same were carried out with the help of family members and others he was not in position toappear in the Court, in such circumstance, he moved an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. praying therein to exempt his personal appearance by annexing entire medical and the order dated 11.7.2008 by which he was released from the jail on furnishing personal bond and sureties bonds. The applicant was released on bail and the order dated 11.7.2008 releasing the applicant passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad can only be passed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. There was no other provision empowering the Magistrate to grant bail but the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) rejected the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and issued bailable warrant against the applicant on 28.2.2011 without any proper reason even without cancelling his bail, which is illegal. 6. The application moved by the C.B.I. not seeking further judicial remand to the accused cannot be moved under Section 169 Cr.P.C. as the applicant was in judicial custody, he was not in custody of the police. The provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. are empowering to Officer In-charge of the police station not to forward the accused to a Magistrate if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond with or without sureties. The provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. are not empowering the Magistrate to release the accused on bail. 7. The provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. are empowering to Officer In-charge of the police station not to forward the accused to a Magistrate if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond with or without sureties. The provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. are not empowering the Magistrate to release the accused on bail. 7. In the closure report submitted by the C.B.I. it has been specifically mentioned in the specified column that the applicant was on bail by the Court. The order releasing the applicant on the application submitted by the CBI shall be treated the order passed under the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad or any other competent Court has not cancelled the bail of the applicant but without applying the judicial mind and complete disregard of the statutory provisions of the law, passed the impugned order in a casual manner. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has committed the error by observing ‘that the applicant has not been released on regular bail. The applicant was summoned on 9.2.2011, thereafter he has not obtained his bail, earlier order passed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. releasing the applicant was not coming under the category of regular bail’. It is further submitted that if the applicant has been released on technical ground, it parity will be the release order passed under Section 167 Cr.P.C., because such order is deemed to be a regular bail. In the present case also the judicial custody remand was not sought, the investigating agency has not applied before the Court and the applicant was released on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds. The releasing order in favour of the applicant shall be treated to be a regular bail. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has committed a manifest error by observing that the applicant has not obtained a regular bail, therefore the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 is illegal, the same may be quashed. In support of the above mentioned contention the learned counsel for the applicant has made the reliance upon the case of R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and others, 2000 Cr. LJ 2453: (2000) 4 SCC 459 : MANU/SC/0277/2000 decided by the Supreme Court of India on 13.4.2000, on its paragraph No. 11 which reads as under: 1. In support of the above mentioned contention the learned counsel for the applicant has made the reliance upon the case of R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu and others, 2000 Cr. LJ 2453: (2000) 4 SCC 459 : MANU/SC/0277/2000 decided by the Supreme Court of India on 13.4.2000, on its paragraph No. 11 which reads as under: 1. After dealing with various aspects of the investigation from Section 154 to Section 168 of he Code, the stature says in the next two sections regarding the subsequent step. Section 169 of the Code enjoins on the officer in charge of the police station concerned to release the accused from custody on executing a bond if it appears to him that “there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a magistrate”. Section 170 of the Code directs that if upon investigation “it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report”. Section 173(1) casts an obligation for completing the investigation without unnecessary delay and Sub-section (2) enjoins on the officer in charge of the police station to forward tot he magistrate a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, on completion of such investigation. The aforesaid power of the officer in charge of the police station is subjected only to the supervision of superior police officers in rank as envisaged in Section 36 of the Code. There is no stage during which the investigating officer is legally obliged to take the opinion of a Public Prosecutor or any authority, except the aforesaid superior police officer in rank. 8. The reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon a case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 179 : 1978(1) SCC 118 , its paragraphs Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22 which are quoted below; 18. Chapter XXXIII of the new Code contains provisions in respect of bail and bonds. Sections 436, Cr.P.C., with which this Chapter opens makes an invariable rule for bail in case of bailable offences subject to the specified exception under sub-section (2) of that section. 18, 19, 21 and 22 which are quoted below; 18. Chapter XXXIII of the new Code contains provisions in respect of bail and bonds. Sections 436, Cr.P.C., with which this Chapter opens makes an invariable rule for bail in case of bailable offences subject to the specified exception under sub-section (2) of that section. Section 437,Cr.P.C. Provides as to when bail may be taken in case of non bailable offences, Sub-section (1) of Section 437, Cr.P.C. makes a dichotomy in dealing with non-bailable offences. The first category relates to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for the life and the rest are all other non bailable offences. With regard to be first category, S. 437 (1), Cr.P.C. imposes a bar to grant of bail by the Court or the officer-in-charge of a police station to a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been so guilty. Naturally, therefore, at the stage of investigation unless there are some materials to justify an officer or the Court to believe- that there are no reasonable ground for believing that the person accused of or suspected of the commission of much an offence has been guilty of the same, there is a ban imposed under Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. against granting of bail. On the other hand, if to either the officer incharge of the police station or to the Court there appear to be reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has been guilty of such an offence there will be no question of the Court or the officer granting bail to him. In all other non-bailable cases judicial discretion win always be exercised by the Court in favour of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 Cr. P.C. with regard to imposition of conditions if necessary. Under sub-section 4 of Section 437 Cr. P.C. An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of that section is required to record in writing his or its reasons for so doing. That is to say, law requires that in non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. reasons have to be recorded for releasing a person on bail, clearly disclosing how discretion has been exercised in that behalf. 19. That is to say, law requires that in non-bailable offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. reasons have to be recorded for releasing a person on bail, clearly disclosing how discretion has been exercised in that behalf. 19. Section 437 Cr.P.C. deals, inter alia with two stages during the initial period of the investigation of a non-bailable offence. Even the officer-in-charge of the police station may, by recording his reasons in writing, release a person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence provided there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence. Quick arrests by the police may be necessary when there are sufficient materials for the accusation or even for suspicion. When such an accused is produced before the Court, the Court has a discretion to grant bail in all non-bailable cases except those punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if there appear to be reasons to believe that he has been guilty of such offences. The Courts over-see the action of the police and exercise judicial discretion in granting bail always bearing in mind that the liberty of an individual is not unnecessarily and unduly abridged and at the same time the cause of justice does not suffer.’ After the Court releases a person on bail under sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of Section 437 Cr.P.C. it may direct him to be arrested again when it considers necessary so to do. This will be also in exercise of its judicial discretion on valid grounds. 21. Section 437 Cr.P.C. is concerned only with the Court of Magistrate. It expressly excludes the High Court and the Court of session. The language of Section 437 (1) may be contrasted with Section 437 (7) to which we have already made a reference. While under sub-section (1) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. the words are : “If there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty”. Sub-section (7) says : “that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence”.This difference in language occurs on account of the stage at which the two sub—sections operate. Sub-section (7) says : “that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence”.This difference in language occurs on account of the stage at which the two sub—sections operate. During the initial investigation of a case in order to confine a person in detention, there should only appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whereas after submission of charge-sheet or during trial for such an offence the Court has an opportunity to form some-what clear opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. At that stage the degree of certainty of opinion in that behalf is more after the trial is over and judgment is deferred than at a pre-trial stage even after the charge-sheet. There is a noticeable trend in the above provisions of law that even in case of such non-bailable offences a person need not be detained in custody for any period more than it is absolutely necessary, if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of such an offence. There will be, however, certain overriding considerations to which we shall refer hereafter. Whenever a person is arrested by the police for such an offence, there should be materials produced before the Court to come to a conclusion as to the nature of the case lie is involved in or he is suspected of. If at that stage from the materials available there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court has no other option than to commit him to custody. At that stag, the Court is concerned with the existence of the materials against the accused and not as to whether those materials are credible or not on the merits. 22. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise the judicial discretion in favour of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 Cr. P.C. if it deems necessary to act under it. 22. In other non-bailable cases the Court will exercise the judicial discretion in favour of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 Cr. P.C. if it deems necessary to act under it. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which may defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also clear that when an accused is brought 367 before the Court of a Magistrate with the allegation against him of an. offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he has ordinarily no option in the matter but to refuse bail subject, however, to the first proviso to s. 437(1) Cr.P.C. and in a case where the Magistrate entertains a reasonable belief on the materials that the accused has not been guilty of such an offence. This will, however, be an extraordinary occasion since there will be some materials at the stage of initial arrest, for the accusation or for strong suspicion of commission by the person of such an offence. 9. The reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant upon the case of Fahat Husain and others v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 582; on its paragraph 7 which quoted as under; 7. This lays down that as soon as the investigation is completed, the investigating officer is to send a report to the Magistrate. There was no justification whatever for the Sub Inspector to delay his final report on the charge of decoity until the proceedings before the Magistrate had terminated. The excuse of Section 169 is clearly an error, because under that section a Sub-Inspector himself release accused persons on bail, and forwards his proceedings to the Magistrate. There was no need for the Sub-Inspector to take any steps under Section 169, P.C. After the accused persons had appeared before the Magistrate, for the question of their admission to bail was one for the Magistrate and not for the Sub-Inspector. Section 169 is only employed while the case is at the stage of the investigation by the police. There was no need for the Sub-Inspector to take any steps under Section 169, P.C. After the accused persons had appeared before the Magistrate, for the question of their admission to bail was one for the Magistrate and not for the Sub-Inspector. Section 169 is only employed while the case is at the stage of the investigation by the police. But we find that the Sub-Inspector in this case by refraining from sending a final report on the charge of dacoity managed to exercise some control over the proceedings of the Court - a control which he would not have been able to do if he had sent his final report. Thus we find that after he inquiry began before the Magistrate he made an application for the release of the accused person, Budhram, who had confessed, and Budhram was released, against the application of the complainant, and Budhram retracted his confession. It is difficult to see that motive the Sub-Inspector could ‘have had for this action other than that Budhram should be subjected to improper influence to induce him to refract his confession. His report for the release of Budhram was made on 29th October 1930. We are of opinion; that the action of the Sub-Inspector was highly improper. Any question of the release of Budhram should have been on an application of the prosecution as represented by the Superintendent of police or the prosecuting Inspector, but by the method of keeping back his final’ report on the charge of decoity the Sub-Inspector managed to retain a position which enabled him to make such an application. 10. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. and learned Government that in the present case the applicant was arrested, his judicial custody remand was obtain by the CBI itself. The bail application after considering the merits of the case has been rejected by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad on 10.6.2008, after considering the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. The bail application after considering the merits of the case has been rejected by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad on 10.6.2008, after considering the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. But on the basis of some public analyst reports the I.O. of the C.B.I. moved an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. for not remanding the applicant to the judicial custody, there was no provision ‘for not remanding’ the accused to the judicial custody except the provision of Section 169 Cr.P.C., the CBI itself has moved the application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. it has empowering the Officer Incharge of police station concerned to release such accused, from the police custody but if the accused happens to be in judicial custody, for his release, the police report is submitted by the Officer-In-charge of the police station concerned before the magistrate concerned for releasing the accused on bail, because accused cannot be released from the jail on the basis of judicial order, then release order order is passed by the magistrate concerned. In such a case, the Officer Incharge/ I.O. moves the application before the Court concerned, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 169 Cr.P.C. on such application the only option remains to be Court concerned is to release the accused on executing a personal bond with or without surety. Therefore, it cannot be said that an application filed by the CBI under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was incorrect or the order passed on this application bythemagistrate may not be considered to pass under Section 169 Cr.P.C. may be treated as order passed under Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. 11. In the present case the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad passed the order dated 11.7.2008 directing the applicant to be released from jail on executing personal bond and two sureties of like amount but the learned Magistrate concerned has mentioned the contents of the application moved under Section 169 Cr.P.C. in the impugned order, it does not mean that the order dated 11.7.2008 has been passed after considering the merits of the case and the applicant has been released on regular bail. 12. In the present case the order dated 11.7.2008 is a relevant order to consider the legality of the impugned order dated 28.2.2011. 12. In the present case the order dated 11.7.2008 is a relevant order to consider the legality of the impugned order dated 28.2.2011. The order dated 11.7.2008 has been passed during the pendency of the investigation, the effect of this order releasing the accused on remains till the Magistrate empowered act upon the police report submitted on the conclusion of the investigation. Such order releasing the applicant from the jail is not a regular bail. It is a contingent order and such order is passed provisionally. If the closure report/ final report report/ police report submitted under Section 169 Cr.P.C. completing the investigation is rejected by the Court concerned by taking the cognizance and summons the accused, such accused is required to obtain the regular bail. In case during pendency of the investigations on application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. praying not to seek the judicial custody remand, the accused is released by the Magistrate concerned, but after completing the investigation police report is submitted on which the cognizance is taken, the accused is under obligation to appear before the Court concerned and is required to obtain regular bail. In both the circumstance the police report forwarded under the provisions of 173 Cr.P.C. if the cognizance is taken, the magistrate concerned is empowered to summon the accused and he may be asked to obtain the regular bail, if he was not released on bail under Section 437, 439/167 Cr.P.C. In any case the order dated 7.11.2008 may not be said to be passed under Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. because the present offence is punishable with death/ life imprisonment, the proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. are not applicable in the present case. In the present case the learned Magistrate concerned is not empowered to release the applicant on bail then the order releasing the applicant under Section 168 Cr.P.C. may not be said to be passed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. 13. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 has been passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad due to non appearance of the applicant before the Court concerned. The application moved by the applicant under Section 205 Cr.P.C has been rejected, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) is empowered to reject it, learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in issuing the bailable warrant against the applicant to secure his presence on the next date fixed i.e. 22.3.2011. The application moved by the applicant under Section 205 Cr.P.C has been rejected, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) is empowered to reject it, learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in issuing the bailable warrant against the applicant to secure his presence on the next date fixed i.e. 22.3.2011. The learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in observing that the order passed on the application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. moved by the C.B.I. releasing the applicant on executing the personal bond and two sureties of like amount does not amount to regular bail. The impugned order dated 28.2.2011 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity because prior to that the closure report submitted by the C.B.I. was rejected by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad the cognizance was taken under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. the applicant and co-accused Dr. Noopur Talwar were summoned to face the trial vide order dated 9.2.2011. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has passed the perfect order. It is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 may be refused. 14. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the C.B.I. cited the case of Hazi Mohd. Wasim and others v. State of U.P. decided by Lucknow Bench of this Court reported in 1992 JIC 817 , the relevant paragraphs No. 5 and 8 are quoted as under; 5. Section 437, Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation. The other relevant provisions shall also have to be taken into account. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation. In this connection it would be relevant to peruse Sections 169 and 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 169 as follows: “169. Section 437, Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation. The other relevant provisions shall also have to be taken into account. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation. In this connection it would be relevant to peruse Sections 169 and 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 169 as follows: “169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.—If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient, evidence or reasonable round of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, of such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.” A perusal of the above noted section would indicate that on conclusion of the investigation if it is found by the Officer in charge of the Police Station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspension to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, he shall release the accused person, in in custody, on his personal bond or with sureties directing him to appear if and when so required before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance. Obviously, in such a case there is no question for the accused person to appear before any Magistrate unless so required or directed by the Court. Sub-section(1) of Section 170,Cr.P.C. read as under : “170. Obviously, in such a case there is no question for the accused person to appear before any Magistrate unless so required or directed by the Court. Sub-section(1) of Section 170,Cr.P.C. read as under : “170. Case to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient.—If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.” According to the above provisions if, on conclusion of the investigation, it appears to the police officer that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. In case the offence made out is a bailable one and the accused is able to give security he shall take security from him for his appearance before a Magistrate on a date fixed for his attendance. It is clear that in case the evidence of non-bailable offence is sufficient he shall forward the accused under custody to the Magistrate. With culmination of the investigation he is empowered to take security bond only in cases which pertain to bailable offences if made out. There is no such power otherwise. 8. As observed earlier Section 437, Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation. it provides for grant of bail in general by different authorities and it is also mentioned about different stage when bail can be granted but other provision of the Code pertaining to different stages of prosecution will also have to be read while considering the question of power to grant bail by different authorities and Courts at different stages and the scope of exercise of the power. My conclusion, on consideration of different provisions, as discussed earlier, is that the power of a police Officer In charge of a police Station to grant bail and the bail granted by him comes to an end with the conclusion of the investigation except in cases where the sufficient evidence is only that of a bailable offence, in which eventuality he can take security for appearance of the accused before the Magistrate on a day fixed or from day to day until otherwise directed. No parity can be claimed with an order passed by Magistrate in view of enabling provisions contained in clause(b) of Section 209, Cr.P.C. under which the Committal Magistrate has been empowered to grant bail until conclusion of trial, which power was otherwise restricted to grant of bail by him during pendency of committal proceedings under clause(a) of Section 209 Cr.P.C. 15. The next case cited by learned counsel for the C.B.I. is Heera Lal Pandit @ Heera Lal v. State of Bihar, decided by the High Court of Patna reported as 2000(3) Cr. LJ 2976, its relevant paras 7, 10 and 11 are quoted as under; 7. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” empowers the police officer to investigate cognizable case for which information relating to commission of cognizable offence is given to the police. Section 169 of the Code speaks about the release of an accused when evidence is not sufficient. However, this section contemplates that if, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the police station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his excluding a bond, with or without sureties, directing the accused to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. Section 170 of the Code empowers the police officer to froward accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance if upon an investigation under this Chapter, the police finds sufficient evidence or reasonable ground. Section 170 of the Code empowers the police officer to froward accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance if upon an investigation under this Chapter, the police finds sufficient evidence or reasonable ground. It further empowers the police to release an accused in case the offence is bailable directing the accused to attend the case day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. 10. FROM the facts, as noticed above, it appears that the petition alongwith other persons was made accused under Section 302 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code and they were forwarded to the learned Magistrate on 5.12.2001 and on the same day, the learned Magistrate remanded the accused persons including the petitioner to judicial custody and ultimately the prayer of the petitioner for grant to bail was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 16.1.2002 and again his payer for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 24.1-2002 and ultimately, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate upon which cognizance of the offence was taken on 3.3.2002. On security of the provisions laid down under the Code, I do not find any such provisions empowering the Magistrate to release/discharge an accused before submission of the final form and taking cognizance of the offence. 11. HERE, in the instant case, it appears that during the pendency of the investigation of the case, the petitioner applied for his release as the Superintendent of Police in the supervision note found him innocent and the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the petitioner and released him from custody and subsequently, on submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is completely unknown to law and the order of release of the accused petitioner vide order dated 6.2.2002 must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and non est in law and it is, accordingly, set aside. The order taking cognizance dated 3.3.2002, therefore, must be held to be well within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate as he was competent to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report under Section 109(1)(b) of the Code. 16. The order taking cognizance dated 3.3.2002, therefore, must be held to be well within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate as he was competent to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report under Section 109(1)(b) of the Code. 16. Considering the facts, circumstances, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the C.B.I. learned Government Advocate and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the validity of the order dated 28.2.2011 has been challenged by the applicant by way of filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for which emphasis has been given on the order dated 11.7.2008 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad by which the applicant was released from the jail on the application submitted by the C.B.I. under Section 169 Cr.P.C. ‘not seeking’ the judicial custody remand, the same was allowed by learned magistrate concerned and applicant was directed to be released from the jail on executing personal bond of Rs. Five lacs and two sureties of the like amount, thereafter the investigation was continued, ultimately the investigation was completed and C.B.I. submitted the closure report in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad the same was rejected on 9.2.2011. The learned magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant and co-accused Dr. Noopur Talwar to appear before the Court to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC directing them to appear before the Court on 28.2.2011. On 28.2.2011 the applicant did not appear before the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad and moved the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. through his counsel with a prayer to exempt his personal attendance on that date. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad rejected the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. by observing that the applicant was not on regular bail, he was released because the judicial remand was not sought by the I.O., he was released under Section 169 Cr.P.C. but even after the service of the summon, the applicant did not appear before the Court on 28.2.2011. The bailable warrant of Rs. 20,000/- was issued against the applicant for ensuring his appearance on 22.3.2011. The bailable warrant of Rs. 20,000/- was issued against the applicant for ensuring his appearance on 22.3.2011. In the present case the main controversy is with regard to ‘nature and effect’ of the order dated 11.7.2008 by which on application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. moved by the I.O. of C.B.I. during pendency of the investigation for not seeking the judicial custody remand the applicant was released on executing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount, whether it is a regular bail or it is a provisional bail, whether such order is effective as of the bail order passed under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C. or it is effective up to limited purpose. The next controversy is with regard to the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 by which on non appearance of the applicant the bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant, whether the bailable warrant may be issued on non appearance of the accused, if he is released from the jail on the ground of non seeking the judicial custody remand by the I.O. under Section 169 Cr.P.C. or in case of regular bail also such order may be passed. 17. To deal with the above mentioned issue the consideration of the provisions of Section 167, 169, 170, 173, 437, 439 Cr.P.C. are necessarily required. The above mentioned provisions of the Code of Criminal Proceedure are quoted below; 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom all accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- 1[(a) The Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding- (i) Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, And, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be to released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;] (b) No Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him; (c) No Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the high Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police. 2[Explanation I. For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the accused shall be detained in Custody so long as he does not furnish bail.] 3[Explanation II].If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorizing detention. 2[(2A) Notwithstanding, anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, lot reasons to be recorded in writing, authoress the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and on the expiry of the period of detention so authorized, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2): Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together was a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.] (3) A Magistrate authorizing under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing. (4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons-case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. (6) Where any order stopping further investigation into an offence has been made under sub-section (5), the Sessions Judge may, if he is satisfied, on an application made to him or otherwise, that further investigation into the offence ought to be made, vacate the order made under sub-section (5) and direct further investigation to be made into the offence subject to such directions with regard to bail and other matters as he may specify. 169. If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the police station that there is not sufficient, evidence or reasonable round of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, of such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. 170.(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. (2) When the officer-in-charge of a police station forwards an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary, to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused. (3) If the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons. (4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report. 173.(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) ................................ (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating- (a) The names of the parties; (b) The nature of the information; (c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) Whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) Whether the accused has been arrested; (f) Whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) Whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report- (a) All documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) The statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the sub-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of’ sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. 437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. 1[(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but- (i) Such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) Such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable and cognizable offence: Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm: Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason: Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that the shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court.] (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, 2[the accused shall, subject to the provisions of Section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail], or, at the discretion of such officer or Court on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chatter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1) the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary- (a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c) Otherwise in the interests of justice. (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its 3[reasons or special reasons] for so doing. (5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to Custody. (6) If, any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non bailable offence is not Concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for - taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. (7)If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non bailable offence and before Judgment is delivered the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered. 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct. 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct. (a) That any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition, which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) That any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to he recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. 18. From the perusal of the above mentioned provisions of the code of Criminal Proceedure 1974, it appears that if an accused is arrested or surrender, and is sent to the jail by a judicial order (Judicial Custody remand) but during investigation the Officer Incharge of the police station concerned/ I.O. of the case moves an application with a prayer not to extend the judicial custody on which the learned Magistrate concerned is having no option except to direct the accused to be released from the jail on furnishing the personal bond with or without surety, such a power to move the application even after completing the investigation is conferred to the Officer Incharge of the police station concerned under Section 169 Cr.P.C. If the accused is under the custody of the Officer Incharge of the police station, such person is released from the custody on executing as personal bond with or without surety, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. But if such person is in judicial custody, the Officer-In-charge/I.O. in exercise of powers conferred under Section 169 Cr.P.C. moves an application before the Magistrate concerned to release such person on executing a personal bond with or without sureties, the learned Magistrate concerned has no power to call upon police to submit charge-sheet when the officer-in-charge or I.O. sends a report that no case is made out for sending the accused for trial, when the Magistrate concerned passes an order on such application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. moved by the Officer Incharge of the police station concerned/ I.O. releasing the accused person on executing a personal bond without or without sureties, such order always comes in perview of Section 169 Cr.P.C. it cannot be treated as passed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. granting the bail to the accused. The contention made by learned counsel for the applicant that order dated 11.7.2008 has not been passed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. is having no substance because the impugned order dated 11.7.2008 has been passed on application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. moved by C.B.I. itself, it cannot e given another meaning. The order dated 11.7.2008 cannot be said to be passed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The contention made by learned counsel for the applicant that the I.O. has wrongly mentioned the Section 169 Cr.P.C. on the application moved for not extending the judicial custody remand is also having no substance because the I.O. has himself moved the application for not extending the judicial custody remand, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 169 Cr.P.C. There is no other provision in the Code of Criminal Proceedure to move such application. 19. So far as the ‘nature and effect’ of the order dated 11.7.2008 is concerned, the order has been passed during pendency of the investigation. The provision of Section 169 is very clear to show that such order is passed releasing a person on executing a personal bond with or without sureties as such officer may direct to appear if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him on trial. It shows that the provision is obviously very clear to meet that contingency of the Magistrate taking a different view from the Officer Incharge/ I.O., the accused is released on undertaking that he shall appear before the Magistrate empowered to take the cognizance, therefore, such a order is contingent order. It is passed for a limited purpose. In any case such order is not having the effect as a accused released on bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C., releasing a person under Section 169 Cr.P.C. is a provisional arrangement. The magistrate empowered to whom the police report is forwarded under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the magistrate is empowered to take the cognizance of the offence on a police report after rejecting the final report/closure report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. The accused may be summoned and he may be asked to obtain a regular bail. If the Magistrate empowered believes that prima facie, non bailable offence is made out, the police may be directed to arrest the accused on his non appearance. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 169 Cr.P.C. if a person is released on executing the personal bond with or without sureties, either by Officer Incharge of the police station or by the learned Magistrate concerned on such report submitted by the officer incharge of the police station concerned, the release of such person is for a limited purpose, it is conditional because he shall appear, if and when so required before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on police report, it is provisional order, such order does not come under the purview of the provisions of 437 or 439 Cr.P.C. The order passed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. may not be given the status of the order passed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or 439 Cr.P.C., releasing the accused on bail, in such circumstances the releasing of the applicant on executing a personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount, is an order passed under Section169 Cr.P.C., it is a contingent and provisional order, in any manner it cannot be termed as regular bail. In such circumstance the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has not committed any error in observing in the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 that the applicant has not obtained a regular bail and the bail granted to the applicant under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was not coming in the category of regular bail. 20. In such circumstance the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has not committed any error in observing in the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 that the applicant has not obtained a regular bail and the bail granted to the applicant under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was not coming in the category of regular bail. 20. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad has not committed any error in issuing the bail warrant of Rs. 20,000/- against the applicant for ensuring his appearance before the Court on 22.3.2011, after rejecting his application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 21. In view of the above discussions, it appears that the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 is not suffering from any illegality, it does not require any interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 is refused. Accordingly this application is dismissed. —————