ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.240/2021 registered at Police Station Outpost Latori, PS Jainagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) for the offence under Sections 420, 120 B & 34 of the IPC, Section 66 D of the I.T. Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Vichitra Vishwas lodged an FIR alleging that he is a Account Holder in IndusInd Bank, Branch Ambikapur. On 13.10.2021, when the complainant enquired telephonically as to whether the payment of his electricity bill was made through his account or not, applicant Anup Kumar Gupta provided customer care number of the Bank. It is alleged that when the complainant called the customer care number, he could not reach the same and thereafter, he received another call from a person, who pretended himself to be customer personnel and sent a link in the mobile phone of the complainant with regard to payment of electricity bill and asked him to fill the OTP, which he did and thereafter, from the account of the complainant, in a fraudulent manner, an amount of Rs.17,98,495/- was withdrawn. The complainant asked applicant Anup Kumar Gupta to keep his account on hold, on which, he told the applicant that he has to submit an application in person in this regard before the Bank and then only, his account shall be kept in hold. The complainant went to the concerned Bank at Ambikapur, but, in the meanwhile, through his Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit, such amount was already withdrawn. After completion of the investigation, the police charge-sheeted three accused persons namely Mohd. Jaseem Ansari, Kutbul Ansari and Sajid Ansari, who are the residents of the State of Jharkhand. During pendency of the Criminal Case No.163/2022 before the CJM, Surajpur, the complainant preferred an application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC for taking cognizance against the present applicants as they were also involved in such crime in a conspired manner, which was allowed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that the present applicants are in no manner involved in such offence as they have dealt the complainant as per the norms governing the Bank. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that the present applicants are in no manner involved in such offence as they have dealt the complainant as per the norms governing the Bank. He would further submit that without assigning proper reasons, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC was allowed against the present applicants as the complainant himself provided the OTP to the fraudulent persons. He further submits that since the applicants are bank employees and there is no chance of flight-risk or tampering with the prosecution evidence as the investigation has already been completed, they may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Objector oppose the prayer for bail. However, learned counsel for the Objector fairly submits that the cognizance order has already been stayed by the High Court and further, the regular bail application of the main accused has also been dismissed by the High Court. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Objector would further submit that since the trial Court has only issued summons, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. For the above submission, learned counsel for the Objector refers to the order dated 18.5.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the matter of Shiv Pal Vs. State of UP and another (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. No.3276/2022) and also the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in the matter of Manak Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.2240/2011). 7. Replying to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the Objector, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would submit that since in the present case, the trial Court has taken cognizance on the application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC; the charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, which is cognizable and non-bailable offence; and the application of the main accused has already been dismissed by the High Court, the aforesaid case laws relied by learned counsel for the Objector is distinguishable in facts from the instant case. He would submit that the right of pre-arrest bail is a fundamental right recognized under the statute to protect the liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the above submission, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the matter of P.V. Narsimha Rao Vs. State (CBI), (1997) 40 DRJ 116 , para 24 of which reads thus : “A situation very much akin to the situation in hand arose before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh, reported as 1985 Cri.L.J. 897. While dealing with the said situation it was observed ...." The main governing factor for the exercise of jurisdiction under S.438, Cr.P.C., is the apprehension of arrest by a person accused of the commission of a non-bailable offence. The section makes no distinction whether the arrest is apprehended at the hands of the police or at the instance of the Magistrate. The issuance of a warrant by the Magistrate against a person, to my mind justifiably gives rise to such an apprehension and well entitles a person to make a prayer for his anticipatory bail. The High Court or the Court of Session may, however, decline to exercise its powers under S.438(1), Cr.P.C. keeping in view the fact that the Magistrate has summoned the accused through bailable warrant - i.e., a relief almost similar to what can be granted by the Court under S.438(1), Cr.P.C. yet that does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to such an accused person. The grant of bail under S. 438(1) by the High Court or the Court of Session is, to my mind, dependent on the merits of a particular case and not the order of the Magistrate choosing to summon an accused through bailable or non-bailable warrant." 8. In the matter of Bharat Chaudhary and another vs. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 8 SCC 77 , it has been categorically observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the courts i.e. the Court of Sessions, High Court or the Apex Court has the necessary power vested in them to grant anticipatory bail in non-bailable offences under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed provided the facts of the case require the Court to do so. 9. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no bar for entertaining an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the instant case. 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering the nature of accusation, quality of evidence and further considering the backdrop of the case, I am of the opinion that the present is a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.PC to the applicant. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required, (b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer, (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, (d) after filing of the charge sheet, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Certified copy as per rules.