SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.:–An application has been moved for modification of the order dated 24.10.2019 seeking extension of time for submitting bail bonds.

2. By order dated 24.10.2019, this court direct as under:—

“In view of the facts as stated above, this application is allowed. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Singhia Police Station Case No.82 of 2017, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further condition is that one of the bailor of the petitioner shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned”.

3. Learned counsel submits that as the court has directed the petitioners to surrender within six weeks however he was under treatment, he could not surrender before the lower court below within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail and bail ought to be allowed to continue till disposal of the trial. He therefore submits that the order requires to be modified.

4. I have considered the submission.

5. Apparently the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail with observation that if he is arrested, the bail bond on sum of Rs.25,000/- with a two surety. However, the words used in the order seem to have created a confusion.

6. Anticipatory bail in terms of section 438 Cr.P.C. means that a person shall not be arrested and if the I.O. requires him to be present he may ask him to submit a bond in terms of section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. i.e. he may ask for bail bond so that the accused presence is secured for investigation or for some other purposes including at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

7. Be that as it may, the concept of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is there is no occasion for a person who has been granted anticipatory bail to surrender before any court or before any police authority. He is free from arrest, subject that any specific conditions laid down by the Court. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sushila Agrawal Vs. State of NCT in S.C. 2020 (5) SC Page 1 has at length discussed the meaning and scope of anticipatory bail and following the earlier Constitution Bench judgment passed in Gorbaksh Singh Sibhia Vs. the State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. In the separate concurrent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, J. it was stated as under:—

98. The court which grants the bail has the right to cancel the bail according to the provisions of the General Clauses Act but ordinarily after hearing the Public Prosecutor when the bail order is confirmed then the benefit of the grant of the bail should continue till the end of the trial of that case. The judgment in Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh is contrary to legislative intent and the spirit of the very provisions of the anticipatory bail itself and has resulted in an artificial and unreasonable restriction on the scope of enactment contrary to the legislative intention.

100. Section 438 CrPC does not mention anything about the duration to which a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest can be granted. The order granting anticipatory bail is a direction specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused and he is released on bail, the court concerned would be fully justified in imposing conditions including direction of joining investigation.

102. In pursuance to the order of the Court of Session or the High Court, once the accused is released on bail by the trial court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender