( 1 ) THE State of Gujarat has filed this Revision Application against the orders passed by the Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur on 11th March 1965 whereby the learned Sessions Judge released the opponent Govindlal Manilal Shah of Deesa on bail in anticipation of his arrest. The opponent Govindlal had preferred an application being Misc. Application No. 5/65 before the learned Sessions Judge Banaskantha at Palanpur for releasing him on bail on the ground that one Popatlal Tokarshi had given a complaint against him to the police for the offence punishable under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as after completing the investigation the police authorities had obtained sanction of the Government to prosecute him for the said offence. He had therefore preferred an application for releasing him on bail in anticipation of his arrest. The learned Sessions Judge held that in view of the amendment made in sec. 497 by adding the words suspected of commission of the powers to release on bail had been enlarged and such anticipatory bail could be legally granted. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge had released the opponent Govindlal Manilal Shah on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 1000/and on furnishing one solvent surety for the like amount in anticipation of any warrant that may be issued against him.

( 2 ) THE State has challenged the said order in the present revision petition.

( 3 ) AT the hearing as nobody appeared for the opponent I had requested Advocate Mr. D. C. Trivedi to appear as amicus curiae and I am very much beholden to him for his valuable assistance rendered in this case.

( 4 ) ON the question whether a person could be released on bail in anticipation of his arrest there appears to be some conflict of authorities but the preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that no such anticipatory bail could be granted. It is implicit in the very definition of the word bail that the person must be under some sort of restraint and the order of releasing a person on bail would set free a person who was under arrest detention or under some kind of restraint by taking security for his appearance. The powers to grant such bail are mentioned in Chapter 39 and sec. 426 of the Code and it is well settled that these provisions are exhaustive of the powers of bail and the Court would have no power except which is specifically provided therein. The power of such anticipatory bail is not one that is expressly mentioned in any of these provisions.

( 5 ) BOTH in secs. 496 and 497 the provision is made for release on bail for a person who is arrested or detained without a warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court. The controversy mainly centres round the expression appears and construction is sought to be put on that expression that it would include even a voluntary appearance of a person who is accused or suspected of an offence as by such appearance he must be deemed to have surrendered to the custody of the Court. This term will have to be interpreted in the context of a bail provision where some restraint is implicit in the very concept of bail. A person who is a free person and who is at liberty to go wherever he likes cannot ask for bail. Such a construction would therefore be anamolous in the context of bail The expression `must take colour from the other words with which it is associated especially when it is used in the context of a bail and when throughout the Code the expression appears or is brought before the Court in secs. 204 242 251 252 etc has been used in the sense of a person who is accused of an offence and who is brought before the Court by a police officer or who voluntarily surrenders himself in pursuance to or because of some warrant of arrest issued against him. Here appearance of a person by itself before a Court is therefore not sufficient. There must be accusation or at least suspicion against him on credib