ORDER 1. Focal question to be considered is whether an accused who was granted bail and thereafter while proceeding under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.), he was declared absconded and standing warrant of arrest has been issued is entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 187 of 2006, registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/18, 49/192, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned First Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur by its order dated 25/08/2014 rejected the application of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail holding that applicant has already been declared as absconder by order dated 03/09/2012, therefore, he is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. Order dated 03/09/2012 reads as follows:- 03-09-2012 jkT; }kjk ,-Mh-ih-vksA vkjksihx.k vuqifLFkrA vkjksihx.k dks tkjh fxj- okjaV ven rkehy okil izkIrA blh Lrj ij ,-Mh-ih-vks- us vfHk;qDr dh yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s izdj.k esa /kkjk 299 na-iz-la- dh dk;Zokgh dj vkjksih ds fo:) LFkk;h fxj- okjaV tkjh fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k fnukad 11&08&2006 ls yafcr gSA vkjksihx.k ds fo:) fnukad 11&10&2011 dks mldh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k fxjrkjh okjaV tkjh djus vknsf’kr fd;k x;k FkkA rc ls vkjksihx.k fujarj vuqifLFkr gSA vkjksihx.k dh mifLFkfr lqfuf’pr djus gsrq vusd ckj fxj- okjaV tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq vkjksih dh mifLFkfr lqfuf’pr ugha gks ik jgh gSA vr% vfHk;kstu ds fuosnu ,oa izdj.k ds voyksdu i'pkr~ vkjksihx.k ds fo:) na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 299 dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks Qjkj ?kksf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA mlds fo:) LFkk;h fxjrkjh okjaV tkjh fd;k tkosA izdj.k O;ofLFkr dj lqjf{kr j[ks gsrq vfHkys[kkxkj izsf”kr fd;k tkos ,ao izdj.k ds eq[k i`”B ij yky L;kgh ls ;g vafdr fd;k tkos fd ^^vkjksihx.k Qjkj gS vr% izdj.k lqjf{kr j[kk tkosA** ¼cyjke dqekj nsokaxu½ U;k- eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] dksVk 4. Appearing for the applicant Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel would submit that though standing warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant by the jurisdictional criminal Court yet, he is entitled to maintain an application under Section 438(1) of the Cr. Appearing for the applicant Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel would submit that though standing warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant by the jurisdictional criminal Court yet, he is entitled to maintain an application under Section 438(1) of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in law and as such, issuance of standing warrant of arrest will not come in his way to claim privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. 5. Appearing for the State Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer would submit that once the applicant has declared absconder by the learned Magistrate under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 6. Before considering the claim of the applicant, it is useful to refer Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. relating to grant of bail to a person who is apprehending arrest, which reads as follows:- "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely. (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation. (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence. (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice. (iv) Where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application." 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. From the perusal of the record, it would appear that the Criminal Case No. 1231 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/18, 49/192, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act are pending consideration against the applicant and other co-accused since 11/08/2006. 9. That on 11/08/2006, the applicant was enlarged on bail by learned Magistrate. On 12/02/2007, warrant of arrest was issued against the present applicant, which was cancelled on 21/06/2010 under Section 70(2) of the Cr. P.C. The applicant remained absent on 11/10/2011, his bail bonds were cancelled and on application filed by the prosecution under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C., the applicant was declared absconder by the Trial Court and standing warrant of arrest was issued against him on 03/09/2012 and his revision against that order was also dismissed. 10. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nirbhay Singh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 Cri. LJ. 3317 has held that an application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. is maintainable after taking cognizance and issuance of process, by Magistrate or at the stage of committal. Paragraphs-14 & 15 states as under:- "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. 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 Cr. P.C. would be maintainable even after the Magistrate issued process under Section 204 or at the stage of committal of the case of the Sessions Court or even at a subsequent stage, if circumstances justify the invocation of the provision. P.C. would be maintainable even after the Magistrate issued process under Section 204 or at the stage of committal of the case of 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 Cr. P.C. 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 interference 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." 11. Further in Yogendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 (1) MPHT 409 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail in respect of accusation of a non-bailable offence, by a person who was already released on bail or anticipatory bail in respect of accusation of that very non-bailable 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. 12. In Natturasu and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 1998 Cr. LJ. 1762, the Madras High Court has held 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. 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. 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-bailable offence only one." 13. Further their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 1057 , has held 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 no 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. 14. Thus, 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-bailable warrant has been issued or standing warrant of arrest has been issued against him by proceeding under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. 15. Hence, in view of the above discussion and relying on the earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High, Court in Yogendra Singh, 2000 (1) MPHT 409 (supra) in which Nirbhay Singh, 1995 Cri. LJ. 3317 (supra) was discussed. P.C. 15. Hence, in view of the above discussion and relying on the earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High, Court in Yogendra Singh, 2000 (1) MPHT 409 (supra) in which Nirbhay Singh, 1995 Cri. LJ. 3317 (supra) was discussed. In the present case the applicant was released on regular bail and thereafter standing non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him 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 to him in accordance with law. 16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is not a fit case in which the provision of Section 438 of the 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 standing non-bailable warrant, or if he surrenders before the Court and moves an application for bail, the Court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.