ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 488/2022 was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 420 , 406 & 120-B of IPC. Later on, offences under Sections 467 , 468 & 471 of IPC have also been added.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no case is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended that there is civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. It is further contended that alleged lease deeds (pattas) were kept in lien to fulfil the requirement of Township Policy, 2010 and lease deeds have now been released by JDA. Complainant can obtain the same from JDA after fulfilling the formalities. It is further contended that an application under Section 37 of the POLICE ACT was filed by the investigation agency before the concerned Magistrate for obtaining warrant of arrest against the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.12.2022 but without any change in circumstances, on 10.01.2023, warrant under Section 37 of the POLICE ACT has been obtained by the investigation agency only to file charge-sheet against the petitioner. It is further contended that charge-sheet in this matter has already been submitted before the court below and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this matter. It is further contended that in this matter, when charge-sheet was filed, proceedings under Section 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. were not initiated and same are still pending which is evident from para No. 7 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Bharat Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2003 (8) SCC 77

(ii) Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan , 2010 (1) SCC 684

(iii) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 51

(iv) Amar Nath Neogi v. State of Jharkhand , 2018 (11) SCC 797

(v) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , 2011 (1) SCC 694

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the petitioner and, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2012 (8) SCC 730 , this bail application is not maintainable.

5. I have considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. Apparently, in this case, now the police has filed the charge-sheet and, therefore, custodial interrogation is not required in this matter. It is also evident from record that only warrant under Section 37 of the POLICE ACT has been obtained by the police to file charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C., while proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are still pending before the concerned Magistrate and have not attained finality.

6. In my considered opinion, it cannot be held that anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the petitioner was not declared absconder and no proclamation was issued against the petitioner till filing of the anticipatory bail application. Merely issuance of warrant under Section 37 of the POLICE ACT does not mean that the petitioner is absconding. In case of Bharat Choudhary (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail will be maintainable after charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken. In case of Ravindra Saxena (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court considering the same situation held that after filing of the charge-sheet, anticipatory bail application can be entertained. In case of Amar Nat