JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.10.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P., in Cr.M.P. No. 2977-3 of 2014/12 in case No.171-3 of 2012, titled as Hari Dass Verma vs. Naginder Singh, allowing application filed by the complainant under Section 311-A of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), whereby accused Naginder Singh has been directed to remain present in Court for giving specimen signature/handwriting during the trial pending before the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act') for the purpose of comparison with the signature of accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') appended on the cheque, subject matter of the trial. 2. Main ground, assailing the impugned order canvassed before this Court is that in view of Proviso to Section 311-A Cr.P.C., trial Court has committed a mistake of law directing the accused to give his specimen signature/handwriting for the reason that accused has, at any point of time, not been arrested in connection with investigation or proceedings related to the trial, wherein he has been directed to do so. 3. To substantiate his plea, reliance has been placed on behalf of the accused on para-9 of a pronouncement of Kerala High Court reported in B.C. Radhakrishnan & others vs. Saju Thuruthikunnel & Another, (2014) CriLJ 425 ; and para 46 of pronouncement of the Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan and another, (1994) 3 SCC 440 . 4. Referring Deepak Mahajan's case, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that word "arrest" when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint or the deprivation of one's personal liberty and unless the person is deprived of personal liberty to go where he pleases, he cannot be said to have been arrested, as in a criminal case an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or of preventing the commission of a criminal offence. It is contended that trial in present case is on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant'), but not on the basis of police report, in which accused was never arrested and, therefore, trial Magistrate was not empowered to direct the accused to give his specimen signature/handwriting. 5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant referring judgments of this High Court in Jitender Kumar vs. State of H.P.,2009 LatestHLJ 278; and judgment dated 27.04.2012, in Cr. Revision No. 62 of 2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Uday Ram, has contended that once petitioner was enlarged on bail after his appearance in the Court in response to bailable warrants issued to him, he has to be treated to have been arrested during pendency of the proceedings and, therefore, he is not entitled for protection of Proviso to Section 311-A Cr.P.C. and for reasons assigned in the impugned order, he has supported it. 6. Section 311-A Cr.P.C. has been inserted by Act No.25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23.06.2006. Prior to it, there was no such provision in the Cr.P.C. However, Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Evidence Act') was empowering the Magistrate to compare signature, writing or seal with admitted or proved signature, writing or seal and this provision is still existing. Section 45 of the Evidence Act provides that opinion of specially skilled persons, called experts, to identify the handwriting etc., is a relevant fact and thus it empowers Court to take help of such experts. Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act deal with the situation during pendency of the trial. 7. Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act are reproduced as under:- "45.Opinion of Experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, are relevant facts. 7. Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act are reproduced as under:- "45.Opinion of Experts.- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts." 73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.- In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person." 8. Earlier to above referred Amendment 2005 in Cr.P.C., there was no provision empowering the Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signature or handwriting for the purpose of any investigation under the Cr.P.C. except provision existing in Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'Prisoners Act'), which reads as under:- "5. Earlier to above referred Amendment 2005 in Cr.P.C., there was no provision empowering the Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signature or handwriting for the purpose of any investigation under the Cr.P.C. except provision existing in Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'Prisoners Act'), which reads as under:- "5. If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Cr.P.C., 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a public officer: Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed expect by a Magistrate of the first class: Provided further, that no order shall be made under this Section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding." Section 2 (a) of the Act defines 'measurements' as including 'finger impressions and foot-print impressions'. 9. Undisputedly the Apex Court in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, (1961) AIR SC 1808 , has decided that no testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution is involved in a direction to give specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of comparison. 10. The Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram, (1979) AIR SC 14 , (1979) 2 SCC 158 , has held that a Court holding an inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code is entitled under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct accused person appearing before it to give his specimen/handwriting to enable the Court, by which he may be tried, to compare it with disputed writing. The Apex Court has further held that comparison within the meaning of first paragraph of Section 73, may be made by handwriting expert (Section 45) or by one familiar with handwriting of the person connected (Section 47) or by the Court and further that the two paragraphs of Section 73 are not mutually exclusive, but complementary to each other and, therefore, this Section is to be read as a whole, in the light of Section 45. 11. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra, (1980) AIR SC 791 , the Apex Court has held that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act an accused person cannot be directed to give his specimen handwriting when matter is still under investigation and there is no proceeding before the Court. In para-4 of the judgment, Apex Court has observed as under:- "4. The second paragraph of Sec. 73 enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings 'for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare' such writings with writings alleged to have been written by such person. The clear implication of the words 'for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare' is that there is some proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for the Court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of 'enabling the Court to compare' and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency 'to compare'. If the case is still under investigation, there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of S. 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. Further, S. 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. Would it be open to a person to seek the assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing under S. 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a Civil Suit in which the question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? Obviously not. If not, why should it make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the Court under S. 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings? 12. Obviously not. If not, why should it make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the Court under S. 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings? 12. In Ram Babu Misra's case supra, the Apex Court has suggested that suitable legislation may be made on the analogy of Section 5 of the Prisoners Act, to provide for the investiture of Magistrates with the power to issue directions to any person including an accused person, to give specimen signatures and writings. 13. In sequel to aforesaid suggestion of the Apex Court Section 311-A Cr.P.C. was inserted in Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- "311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwritings.- If a Magistrate of the first Class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting: Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding." 14. So far as findings returned by the Kerala High Court in para-9 of B.C. Radhakrishnan's case, relied upon by the accused, there is no quarrel as the Proviso to Section 311-A Cr.P.C. limits power conferred on the Magistrate by this Section by providing restriction that it can be exercised only in a case where accused person had been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. However, in the same judgment in paragraphs 12 and 13, it has been held that power vested with the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, can be exercised by the Court directing any person present in Court to write words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with words or figures alleged to have been written by such person and this Section does not prescribe any specific time for invocation of the Court's power and, therefore, it is held that Magistrate has ample power and jurisdiction to invoke Section 73 of the Evidence Act, for directing accused to furnish specimen writing for the purpose of comparison. 15. Section 73 of the Evidence Act, empowers the Court to direct any person, not only accused, to give his specimen signatures or handwriting for the purpose of comparison of handwriting and signatures of that person during trial. Combined reading of Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act infers that Court may make such comparison with the help of the expert by seeking his opinion and provisions of these Sections are applicable to Criminal as well as Civil trial. Whereas, Section 311-A Cr.P.C. deals with a case under Cr.P.C., where Magistrate of the first Class has been empowered to make an order for production or attendance of a person at the time and place specified in such order with a direction to such person to give his specimen signatures and handwriting when Magistrate is satisfied that for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under Cr.P.C., it is expedient to direct that person, including an accused person to give such specimen signature and handwriting and in Proviso this power of the Magistrate has been limited only with respect to that person, who at some time, has been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding. 16. 16. In view of the provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, coupled with pronouncement of the Apex Court in Pali Ram s, (1979) 2 SCC 158 , it is clear in no uncertain terms that during pendency of the trial, Magistrate has power to issue direction to any person, including accused to give his specimen signature or handwriting and to send the questioned handwriting/signatures alongwith specimen handwriting/ admitted signatures to the expert for opinion or to compare himself under Section 73 of the Evidence Act or to compare it with the help of person well acquainted with such handwriting or expert as provided under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. 17. Though as observed hereinabove, Magistrate was empowered to issue direction to the accused to give his specimen signatures/handwriting under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. However, Magistrate has also referred provisions of Section 311-A Cr.P.C., in the impugned order and after considering judgments cited by the complainant, passed by this Court in Jitender Kumar and Uday Ram's cases, he has considered that such accused was released on bail at the initial stage of the trial on furnishing bail bonds and thus he has to be considered in deemed judicial custody of the Court at that time and, therefore, no formal arrest is required before passing any direction under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. and petitioner/accused has also assailed this portion of the order. 18. The Apex Court in paragraph 46 of Deepak Mahajan s, (1994) 3 SCC 440 , has explained the word 'arrest' as under:- "46. The word 'arrest' is derived from the French word 'Arreter' meaning "to stop or stay" and signifies a restraint of the person. Lexicologically, the meaning of the word 'arrest' is given in various dictionaries depending upon the circumstances in which the said expression is used. One of us, (S. Ratnavel Pandian, J. as he then was being the Judge of the High Court of Madras) in Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary, Government of T.N., (1984) CriLJ 134 , had an occasion to go into the gamut of the meaning of the word 'arrest' with reference to various textbooks and dictionaries, the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Halsbury's Law of England, A Dictionary of Law by L.B. Curzon, Black's Law Dictionary and Words and Phrases. On the basis of the meaning given in those textbooks and lexicons, it has been held that: "[T]he word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint or the deprivation of one's personal liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not, depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offences, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or of preventing the commission of a criminal offence. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested." 19. In aforesaid pronouncement in Deepak Mahajan's case, referring various Sections in Chapter-V of Cr.P.C., titled "Arrest of a Person" particularly under Sections 41 to 44, it has been concluded that Cr.P.C. gives power of arrest not only to Police Officer and a Magistrate but also under certain circumstances or given situation to private persons and further that when an accused person appears before the Magistrate or surrenders voluntarily, the Magistrate is empowered to take that accused person into custody and deal with him according to law. It has been further held that the arrest of a person is condition precedent for taking him into 'judicial custody' thereof as the taking of the person into 'judicial custody' is followed after arrest of the person concerned by the Magistrate on appearance or surrender. 20. The Apex Court in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others, (1980) 2 SCC 559 , in para-9 has observed as under:- "9. He can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court and submits to its directions. ..." 21. He can be in custody not merely when the police arrests him, produces him before a Magistrate and gets a remand to judicial or other custody. He can be stated to be in judicial custody when he surrenders before the court and submits to its directions. ..." 21. On the basis of pronouncement of the Apex Court in Niranjan Singh's case, this Court in Karam Dass and 91 others vs. State of H.P., (1995) 1 ShimLC 363 , has held that appearance and surrender of accused person in the Court amounts to his custody in the Court and thus, he has to be considered to have been arrested. 22. In Chapter-XXXIII of Cr.P.C., provisions as to bail and bonds have been provided. Section 436 Cr.P.C. deals with grant of bail to a person arrested for commission of a non-bailable offence. Section 437 Cr.P.C. provides grant of bail to a person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence, arrested or detained without warrant in certain cases by a Court other than High Court or Court of Session. Section 439 Cr.P.C. provides grant of bail by the High Court or Sessions Court to a person arrested, accused or suspected of commission of offence of the nature specified in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. Section 438 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to direct for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest but in that case also the bail is not granted prior to arrest and it has been specifically provided in the section that High Court or Court of Session may pass a direction under this Section that in the event of such arrest, a person shall be released on bail. Therefore, for grant of bail to a person, his arrest is a precondition and during bail the said person remains under the control of the Court because of the fact that bail is granted subject to undertaking by such person to attend the Court as and when directed to do so coupled with certain other conditions imposed by the Court including joining investigation, as deemed fit and breach of any such condition, including without permission absence from the Court, would entail arrest of a person leading to his 'judicial custody'. As held by this Court in Jitender Kumar s,2009 LatestHLJ 278 supra and the Apex Court in judgments referred supra such person notionally remains in custody of the Court and thus continues to be a person arrested. Thus a person enlarged on bail under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C., is a person arrested in connection with relevant investigation or proceeding. 23. In a trial a person may be produced or may appear in the Court in compliance of notice, bailable warrants or nonbailable warrants issued against him. In case of production in execution of non-bailable warrants, he is certainly arrested during proceedings pending before the Court. In case of bailable warrants also the person is released on bail, by the officer executing bailable warrants, on furnishing personal bond as well as surety bond by the accused and in that eventuality also, he has to be considered to have been arrested by the executing officer and thereafter released on bail for assurance to appear in the Court on the date intimated through bailable warrants. In case of appearance of a person/accused in the Court in compliance of notice/summons issued to him in a criminal case, he surrenders himself before the Court and submits him for further orders, and for presence in the trial, he may be committed to judicial custody or on furnishing the personal bond with or without surety bond he may be enlarged on bail for his assurance to appear in the Court whenever required or directed to do so and in such eventuality, he surrenders himself to the custody of the Court and as held by the Apex Court for such custody arrest is a precondition. Therefore, such person is also to be considered to have been arrested in connection with proceedings pending in the Court. 24. In view of nature of issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would also be appropriate to discuss the meaning and nature of the 'custody with or without arrest' and also 'custody followed by arrest'. 25. Therefore, such person is also to be considered to have been arrested in connection with proceedings pending in the Court. 24. In view of nature of issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would also be appropriate to discuss the meaning and nature of the 'custody with or without arrest' and also 'custody followed by arrest'. 25. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1960) AIR SC 1125 , it has been held by Five Judges' Bench of Supreme Court that when a person, not in custody approaches a Police Officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be against him he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police and Section 46 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody, submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. Further that a person directly giving to a Police Officer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the Police Officer within meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 26. In Niranjan Singh s, (1980) 2 SCC 559 supra the Apex Court has observed as under:- "7. When is a person in custody, within the meaning of Section 430 Cr.P.C? When he is in duress either because he is held by the investigating agency or other police or allied authority or is under the control of the court having been remanded by judicial order, or having offered himself to the court's jurisdiction and submitted to its orders by physical presence. No lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439. This word is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that the law has taken control of the person. This word is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that the law has taken control of the person. The equivocatory quibblings and hide-and-seek niceties sometimes heard in court that the police have taken a man into informal custody but not arrested him, have detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and other like terminological dubieties are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of the law. We need not dilate on this shady facet here because we are satisfied that the accused did physically submit before the Sessions Judge and the jurisdiction to grant bail thus arose. 8. Custody, in the context of Section 439, (we are not, be it noted, dealing with anticipatory bail under Section 438) in physical control or at least physical presence of the accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the Court. 27. This principle has been referred and relied by Five Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , observing that if and when the occasion arises it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in the principle stated by this Court in Deoman Upadhyaya s, (1960) AIR SC 1125 to the effect that when a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be that Section 46 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody, submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. 28. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be that Section 46 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody, submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. 28. An observation has also been made by Five Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , referring principle of "limited custody" or "deemed custody" when a person is on bail, by observing that observations in Sibbia s, (1980) 2 SCC 565 regarding it to facilitate the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is reliable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody) and in such event there is no question or necessity of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail and if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in Deoman Upadhyaya s,1960 AIR(SCC) 1125. 29. There may be cases where custody of a person is taken prior to arrest. One example of such situation is when a person is taken in custody by the police for the purpose of interrogation/investigation but prior to his arrest and that custody may or may not be followed by arrest, depending upon the evidence and inference of interrogation of such or other persons. In case where the person is set free without furnishing personal and/or surety bonds, for such custody, neither arrest is precondition nor after taking into such custody the person can be said to have been arrested. But in those cases wherein for letting free the person furnishing of personal and/or surety bonds are necessary, then definitely, for such custody, arrest is a precondition and thus wherever a person has been enlarged on bail, he has to be deemed to have been arrested before such release. 30. But in those cases wherein for letting free the person furnishing of personal and/or surety bonds are necessary, then definitely, for such custody, arrest is a precondition and thus wherever a person has been enlarged on bail, he has to be deemed to have been arrested before such release. 30. Section 73 of the Evidence Act empowers the Court in all kinds of matters, Civil as well as Criminal, to direct any person to give specimen handwriting/signatures and to compare the same in the matter being adjudicated by the said Court. Whereas, Section 311-A Cr.P.C. is expansion of power of the Magistrate for issuing such directions to a person during inquiry or proceeding under Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fact whether such inquiry or proceeding is pending before him or not. Insertion of Section 311-A Cr.P.C. is for enabling the Court to pass an order, issue direction, to any person to give specimen signatures or handwriting before commencement of trial, during investigation or during trial under Cr.P.C. Proviso to this Section cannot circumvent powers of the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, to give direction to any person to write words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person for adjudication of matter pending before it, as it is within jurisdiction of the Court to do so for adjudication of Civil or Criminal matter. 31. Jurisdiction and power conferred upon Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act is not inhibited by Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. but is expanded to the cases of investigation and other proceedings which are even not pending before such Court exercising power as Magistrate. 32. In present case, presence of accused could not be ascertained on issuance of summons to him whereupon bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 1000/- were issued on 27.06.2012 for ensuring his presence for 27.08.2012. In compliance of bailable warrants, accused had appeared in the Court on 27.08.2012 on which date, he had furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- were issued on 27.06.2012 for ensuring his presence for 27.08.2012. In compliance of bailable warrants, accused had appeared in the Court on 27.08.2012 on which date, he had furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount which were attested and accepted by the trial Court, and petitioner was enlarged on bail on the basis of his undertaking, tendered in bail bonds, to appear on each and every date in the trial before the trial Court, the present Court or any other Court wherever case may be transferred, till final judgment in the trial. 33. In the light of discussion hereinabove, it is evidently clear that firstly at the time of execution of bailable warrants accused has to be considered to have been arrested by the executing Officer in connection with proceedings pending before the Court and thereafter, he appeared, surrendered and submitted himself before the Court on 27.08.2012, whereupon he was enlarged on bail on furnishing personal and surety bonds as directed by the Court and, therefore, on that day also, he has to be deemed to have been arrested and thus Proviso to Section 311-A Cr.P.C. is of no help to the accused. 34. In view of the exposition of law hereinabove, I find no ground for interference and accordingly petition is dismissed with a direction to the parties to appear before the trial Court on 28.10.2020. Record be sent immediately