Anticipatory bail after summons remains maintainable where there is a reasonable, objective apprehension of arrest on appearance.

Anticipatory bail remains available after a complaint is filed and summons are issued, because Section 438 is not displaced merely by cognizance or process. The relevant question is whether the accused shows a reasonable apprehension of arrest or custody on appearance, rather than a vague fear. On the stated facts, prior cooperation with investigation and a real risk of custody on appearance supported pre-arrest protection, and the special bail conditions under the Companies Act did not by themselves bar relief. The result is that pre-arrest protection may be granted despite pending summons where the apprehension of arrest is objectively grounded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for anticipatory bail remains maintainable after a complaint has been filed and summons have been issued to the accused. (ii) Whether the applicants had shown a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest or custody on appearance before the trial court, so as to justify grant of anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether an application for anticipatory bail remains maintainable after a complaint has been filed and summons have been issued to the accused.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes post-arrest bail under Sections 437 and 439 from anticipatory bail under Section 438. Anticipatory bail is available to a person who has reason to believe that arrest may follow on accusation of a non-bailable offence. Filing of a complaint or issuance of summons does not, by itself, extinguish that remedy. The settled position applied was that the power under Section 438 is not excluded merely because cognizance has been taken or process has been issued.

Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail remained maintainable despite the complaint and summons.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants had shown a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest or custody on appearance before the trial court, so as to justify grant of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The relevant test is whether the apprehension of arrest is founded on reasonable grounds and not on a vague fear. On the facts, the applicants had not been arrested during investigation, had cooperated with the investigation, and had a real apprehension that they might be taken into custody on appearance before the trial court, especially in light of the course adopted in similar matters. The special bail conditions under the Companies Act did not justify denial of protection when pre-arrest relief was otherwise warranted. The Court therefore applied the principles governing anticipatory bail and found the case fit for relief.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: Pre-arrest protection was granted, with the result that the applicants need not undergo custody merely because summons had been issued on the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remains available after filing of a complaint and issuance of summons, and may be granted where the accused shows a reasonable apprehension of arrest or custody on appearance before the court.

---