Anticipatory bail remains available after summons where arrest is reasonably apprehended, and a cancellation challenge lacked merit.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not confined to cases where arrest is made by the police; a person facing a cognizable, non-bailable offence may reasonably apprehend arrest even after the Magistrate has issued summons. The issuance of process does not by itself exclude consideration of anticipatory bail, and settled precedent recognises that such relief can remain available after summons. Applying that position, the Court found no legal impropriety in the anticipatory bail order and held that the challenge to its cancellation was without substance.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when an accused has already been summoned by the Magistrate and whether the petition seeking cancellation of such bail order disclosed any merit.

Analysis: The Court held that the question was no longer res integra and that the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not confined to cases of arrest by the police alone. A person accused of a cognizable and non-bailable offence may reasonably apprehend arrest even at the instance of the court, and the Magistrate's issuance of process does not by itself exclude consideration of anticipatory bail. The Court further noted that settled precedent recognises the availability of such relief even after summons have been issued, and that the challenge to the grant of anticipatory bail disclosed no legal impropriety.

Conclusion: The petition challenging the anticipatory bail order was held to be devoid of substance and was dismissed.

---