Anticipatory bail remains maintainable after cognizance or a warrant, but no interim restraint on arrest is permitted.

Section 438 is construed broadly to cover a person who reasonably apprehends arrest on a non-bailable accusation, even after cognizance has been taken, process issued, a non-bailable warrant issued, or committal proceedings begun. The continued accusation is not extinguished by those procedural steps, so anticipatory bail remains maintainable if circumstances justify its invocation. Where anticipatory bail is granted after issuance of a warrant, the warrant must be executed consistently with that protection. However, the Court held that Section 438 does not permit an interim order directly restraining arrest in such proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code is maintainable after the Magistrate has taken cognizance, issued process, or issued a non-bailable warrant, and even at the stage of committal; (ii) whether an interim order restraining arrest can be passed in such proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code is maintainable after the Magistrate has taken cognizance, issued process, or issued a non-bailable warrant, and even at the stage of committal.

Analysis: The expression used in Section 438 is broad and covers a person who has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence. The continued existence of the accusation is not destroyed by filing of the charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, issuance of process, or committal proceedings. The provision does not confine arrest to arrest by the police, and there is no warrant for reading into it a limitation that it applies only before a Magistrate acts under Section 204 or Section 209. The Court also reconciled the provision with the warrant-issuing power by holding that where anticipatory bail is granted after issuance of a warrant, the warrant is to be executed in a manner consistent with that order.

Conclusion: The application is maintainable even after cognizance, issuance of process, issuance of non-bailable warrant, and at the committal stage, if circumstances justify invocation of Section 438.

Issue (ii): Whether an interim order restraining arrest can be passed in proceedings under Section 438 of the Code.

Analysis: The Court followed its earlier view that the power under Section 438 does not extend to passing an interim order that directly restrains arrest. The reasoning treated such restraint as beyond the permissible interim protection contemplated by the provision.

Conclusion: No interim order restraining arrest can be passed.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that anticipatory bail remains available notwithstanding cognizance, process, or committal, but interim protection in the form of a direct restraint on arrest is impermissible, and the matter was sent back for disposal of the application accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 is attracted by the existence of an apprehension of arrest on a non-bailable accusation and is not confined to pre-cognizance police arrest; the provision must be construed broadly, while any warrant issued by the Magistrate must be worked in harmony with an order of anticipatory bail.

---