ORDER

Dhirendra Mishra, J. —The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends arrest in connection with Criminal Case No. 535 of 2006, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, for offence punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467 and 471 of the IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the complaint of non-applicant No. 2, the aforesaid offence was registered and summon was issued to the applicant. He was granted bail by the trial Court on 23.6.2002 (Annexure A4). Allegation against the applicant is that by manipulating the service record, the applicant changed his date of birth from 7.6.1937 to 7.6.1939. The revision preferred by the non-applicant No. 2 against the order of grant of bail was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28th April, 2008 and the applicant was directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 12th May, 2008.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he was released on regular bail by the trial Court in the year 2002 and he did not abuse the bail granted to him till date. The order of the bail has been set aside on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail for offence under Section 467 of IPC as the same is punishable with imprisonment for life and he has been directed to surrender before the trial Court. It was further argued that the complaint was lodged at the fag end of his service career with ulterior motive. On the complaint of the non-applicant No. 2, Collector Raigarh directed enquiry and the District Education Officer vide his report dated 11.12.2000 (Annexure A 6) apprised the Collector that the date of birth mentioned in the Service Book of the applicant is correct.

4. Reliance is placed on the decision in the matters of Yuvraj Gaud v. State of M.P. and Anr.1 and Gheesya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan.2

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the above prayer.

6. Non-applicant No. 2 is unrepresented, though served.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. It is not in dispute that after registration of the offence against the applicant in a complaint case filed by non-applicant No. 2, the applicant was granted bail on 23.6.2002 by the trial Court and the said order has been subsequently set aside by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2008 (Annexure A5) on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has no jurisdiction to grant bail for the offence punishable under Section 467 of the IPC as it is punishable with imprisonment for life. Apprehension of the applicant is that in case, he appears before the trial Court, he shall be arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence as the trial Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail. It is also not in dispute that the complaint regardin manipulation in Service Book was made in the year 2002, on the verge of retirement of the applicant. From the document of Annexure A6, it also appears that the District Education Officer conducted an enquiry regarding date of birth of the applicant in the Service Record and found the same to be correct.

9. In the matter of Yuvraj Gaud (supra) also offence was registered against the applicant under Section 467 of IPC on a private complaint and bailable warrant was issued against him. His application for bail was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to appear before the trial Court and furnish bail as he was summoned through bailable warrant. The learned single Judge of the MP High Court allowed his application under Section 438 of CrPC with an observation that where the applicant shows reasons to believe that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, in such circumstances he may be granted protection under Section 438 of CrPC in appropriaete case as provision of Section 438 of CrPC is a device to secure the individual’s liberty.

10. In the matter of Gheesya (supra), initially crime was regi