ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The endeavor of the appellant to seek anticipatory bail was not fruitful in terms of the impugned order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the Special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), CBI Court No.1. Ghaziabad. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that his position is similar to the case of Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided in Criminal Appeal No.1100/2022 dated 26th July, 2022, inasmuch as he had joined the investigation, was not arrested, and charge-sheet has been filed. 6. In our view the correct approach would have been for the appellant to apply for regular bail as his case would be covered by the reportable order of this Court dated 16.8.2021 in Crl. Appeal No.838 of 2021 titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' that the person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after rejection of anticipatory bail application, warrants for arrest have been issued. 7. We are thus of the view that the ends of justice can be met by directing that the appellant should apply for regular bail and till his application is considered, protection is granted to him against arrest till the bail application is decided. The bail application be filed within two weeks from today and will be examined in the contours of the judgment titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.'. 8. The criminal appeal stands disposed.