1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. It appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Court that petitioners prayer for anticipatory bail U/S 438 of the Cr. P.C. was rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable because according to the FIR a case U/Ss-364, 323, 307/34 of the IPC which are non-bailable offences, was instituted against the accused persons including the petitioner and it further appears that in course of the investigation petitioner was taken into custody by the police and then granted benefit of police bail under the provisions of Section 437(2) of the Cr. P.C.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that after investigation police submitted chargesheet only for bailable offences and the learned Magistrate has differed with the opinion of the police and taken cognizance also for non-bailable offences and hence petitioner has apprehended danger of arrest and custody and therefore anticipatory bail application should be entertained by the Court under the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C.

4. On considering the relevant provision in the Code of Criminal Procedures, this Court is of the opinion tha