Mohd. Shamim,j. (Oral)

( 1 ) A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view while deciding Crl. M. (M) No 2341/96, entitled P. V. Narasimharao v. State (CBI), on September 26,1996 that an application for anticipatory bail in a case where summons only have been issued would not be maintainable as, according to him, there was no apprehension of arrest in such a case. However, when another petition being Crl. M. (M) No. 2733/96 entitled P. V. Narasimharao v. State (CBI) came up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the observations of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh, reported as 1985 Crl. L. J. 897, to the following effect:

"the grant of bail under Section 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. "

( 2 ) THE learned counsel thus on the basis of the above contended before the learned Single Judge that an application for anticipatory bail was maintainable even in a case where only summons have been issued for the appearance of the accused before the Court. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document