Valid summons and lawful custody are prerequisites for Section 437 bail; defective process cannot support bail proceedings.

Summons or warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure must emanate from a valid judicial order on cognizance; where process is not ordered under Section 204, a summons issued under Section 61 is procedurally defective. The power to entertain bail under Section 437 arises only when the accused is arrested, detained, or otherwise validly brought before the court through lawful process. On the stated facts, the absence of an antecedent order issuing summons or warrant meant the accused was not validly before the court, so custody and bail proceedings rested on an invalid foundation and relief was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of any order issuing summons or warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused could be treated as validly summoned or brought before the court so as to entertain an application for bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The order taking cognizance recorded that process against the appellant was to be issued later, yet a summons under Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was issued without any antecedent order under Section 204. The legal position is that summons or warrant must flow from a valid judicial order on cognizance, and the bail power under Section 437 operates only when the accused is arrested, detained, or validly brought before the court pursuant to such process. In the absence of an order for issuance of summons or warrant, the summons could not have been issued or served, and the subsequent custody and bail proceedings suffered from a fundamental procedural defect.

Conclusion: The bail application ought not to have been entertained on the basis of the invalid process, and the appellant was entitled to relief.

---