1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. These anticipatory bail applications under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) have been filed by the applicants, namely, Rakesh Gurjar, Sanjay Malviya and Dhiraj Singh Baghel, in connection with Crime No.18/2013, registered with STF Police Station.

3. The applicants first approached the Sessions Court for the same relief, who in terms of order dated 6th March, 2014, rejected each of the applications, for the following reasons :

^^vkosnd i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us bl vi-Ø-18@13 esa vU; vfHk;qDr Hkkjr flag Bkdqj dks ,e-lh-vkj-lh-Ø-1550@2014 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 17-2-2014 dk voyac ysrs gq, rdZ fd;k gS fd Hkkjr flag Bkdqj dk izdj.k le:i gS vr% lekurk ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd Hkh vfxze izfrHkwfr dk vf/kdkjh gSA

Hkkjr flag Bkdqj ds izfrHkwfr vkns’k fnukad 17-2-2014 ds voyksdu ek= ls ;g Li”V gks tkrk gS fd Hkkjr flag dk p;u iqfyl vkj{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk esa ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj mls fu;qfDr dk YkkHk Hkh ugha feyk Fkk] tcfd vkosnd p;fur gksdj fu;qfDr dk ykHk vftZr dj ldk gSA vkosnd }kjk ijh{kk eas dh xbZ dfFkr voSèkrk dk ykHk mls vftZr gks pqdk gS vr% vkosnd dk izdj.k Hkjrflag ds izdj.k ls lkjoku :i ls fHkUu gSA

vkosnd ds fo:) vUos”k.k vHkh yafcr gSA foospd ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj vkosnd mUgsa vHkh rd miyC/k gh ugha gqvk gSA dsl Mk;jh ls vkosnd dks ek= ijs’kku djus ds mnns’; ls feF;k vfHk;ksftrdj fxjrkj fd;s tkus dh laHkkouk nf’kZr ugha gksrh gSA vUos”k.k dh vko’;drk ,oa dsl Mk;jh ij miyC/k izR;{k rF;ksa dks –f”Vxr djrs gq, vkosnd jkds’k xqtZj dks vfxze izfrHkwfr dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vr% vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 438] n-iz-la- vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA**

4. Counsel for the applicants invited our attention to the provisions of section 163 and then to section 41, in particular, clause (ii) (b) of the Code, as inserted by Amendment Act No.5 of 2009, and section 46 of the Code to contend that the Police Officer can arrest a person only on fulfilling the requirements specified by the the Amending Act. Further, the arrest cannot be for the purpose of extracting admission/confession or compelling the accused to give false evidence whilst in police custody by force or under coercion. That act of the police would result in the commission of offences under sections 195-A, 319 and 330 of IPC. Necessarily, therefore, when the applicants are more than willing to participate in the investigation, it is but appropriate that the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and other, (2011) 1 SCC 694, paragraphs 85 and 90 thereof, in particular.

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the argument canvassed on behalf of the applicants. The requirement of complying with the conditions specified in amended section 41 of the Code will arise only at the time of arrest of the applicants. The fact that the applicants are likely to be arrested by itself cannot be the basis to grant anticipatory bail. It is well established position that the anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course.

6. We had occasion to deal with this similar argument while considering MCrC No.4586/2014, and including the decision of the apex Court, pressed into service by the counsel for the applicants, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra). The apex Court in the case of CBI v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806, in paragraph 6 has observed thus :

“We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under section 438 of the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arre