JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is second Anticipatory Bail Application moved by the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on anticipatory bail in CNR (UPBR01-003150-2020) in Case No. 259 of 2020 (State Vs. Satyendra Kumar Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 0493 of 2019 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kotwali, District, Bareilly. The first Anticipatory Bail Application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.11.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 48764 of 2019 whereby the applicant was directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-and two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of S.H.O. of police station concerned with the conditions mentioned in the said order.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant in the Affidavit filed in support of this Application that the Investigating Officer without investigating the case properly, has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and the trial court after taking cognizance, has issued summons against him, hence he apprehends his arrest on accusation of aforesaid non bailable offence. The apprehended accusation does not fall under the offences provided under sub-section 6 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Second Anticipatory Bail Application is maintainable on behalf of applicant as there is a change in fact situation as well as situation of law. The first Anticipatory Bail Application was filed by the applicant after registration of F.I.R. while the present application is being filed after submission of charge-sheet by the I.O. and after cognizance having been taken by the court below. Further it is mentioned that when the order dated 13.11.2019 was passed, question with regard to the life of an order passed in respect of Anticipatory Bail was not decided by Hon’ble Apex Court as judgment of the Constitution Bench which answered the aforesaid question was reserved. However, the High Court as well as Courts of Sessions throughout India were passing orders granting Anticipatory Bail till conclusion of the investigation i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., in view of the judgment of the three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 462 of 2018 (Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab) dated 27.03.2018 reported in (2018) SCC Online SC 415. The aforesaid view has been followed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53729 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another). Copies of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.05.2018 and 23.10.2019, whereby questions for Constitution Bench were framed and the judgment was reserved, have been collectively annexed as Annexure-2. The said full Bench decided the question and laid down that an order whereby Anticipatory Bail was granted, cannot be restricted or limited except for special reason. It was held that general rule is that an order whereby anticipatory bail is granted, should not limit the period of bail, the Court can limit the aforesaid period for reasons to be assigned. The Constitution Bench has in the said order dated 29.01.2020, reiterated the version of earlier Constitutional Bench of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. The order dated 13.11.2019 does not assign any reason for limiting the Anticipatory Bail order till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The Constitutional Bench has further held that the Anticipatory Bail Application can be filed at any stage, hence on the aforesaid ground, the instant second Anticipatory Bail Application is being moved. Further it is mentioned that the full Bench of Rajasthan High Court rendered judgment in Case of Ganesh Raj Vs. S