ORDER : S.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel. The petitioner is apprehending arrest for commission of offences under Sections 420 and 294-Aof the I.P.C. read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circular (Banning) Act in C.T. Case No. 13.02 of 2015 of the Court of S.DJ.M., Bhawanipatna, arising out of Bhawanipatna Sadar P.S. Case No. 177 of 2015. 2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the alleged commission of aforesaid offences. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after submission of charge-sheet, summons has been issued against the present petitioner. The petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application apprehending that once he surrenders before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna in pursuance of the summons issued against him, then he will be remanded to the judicial custody as it is the usual practice at Bhawanipatna. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if true, is a matter of concern. After amendment of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. certain conditions are required to be satisfied before arresting a person who is accused of a non-bailable offence punishable for a term of exceeding seven years. In interpreting the said provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2014 SC 2756 : 2014 (II) OLR (SC) 562, has given guidelines to be followed by the Investigating Agency and has also directed that the learned Magistrate, after the accused is produced before him to have a limited judicial enquiry to find out if the Investigating Officer has complied with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If and only if the statutory requirements are fulfilled then the learned Magistrate can authorize detention of the accused in judicial custody. If there is violation of the instructions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision, a contempt proceeding can be initiated against the Investigating Officer for the charge of not following the guidelines and instructions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in arresting a person for alleged commission of offences punishable for a term of not exceeding seven years of imprisonment and forwarding him to the Court. 3. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has also observed that if the Magistrate fails to do his duty as given in the body of that judgment, appropriate departmental action may be taken against him by the High Court. 4. It is apparent from the records that offence under Section 204-A of the I.P.C. is bailable in nature, offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is punishable with an imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and punishment prescribed for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act is 5 years and 2 years respectively. So, in such situation, the Magistrate issuing summons to an accused who was not arrested by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, if passes orders for remanding the accused to the judicial custody, will be liable for violation of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (supra). 5. This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that no order need be passed in this case as summons has been issued against the petitioner and there is no apprehension of his arrest. However, the Court hopes and trusts that the appropriate interpretation shall be made by the concerned Magistrate to the language of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. as and when the petitioner surrenders before him in pursuance to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate. 6. The ABLAPL is accordingly disposed of. 7. A free copy of this order be given to Sri S.K. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate for compliance. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Disposed off