https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299658 The Court held that a Magistrate is not mandatorily required to issue a bailable warrant when taking cognizance of a non-bailable offense if the accused has not obtained anticipatory bail. It was clarified that the discretion of the Magistrate under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. is not restricted by Section 438(3) unless anticipatory bail has been granted. Additionally, the High Court or Sessions Court can grant anticipatory bail even after a Magistrate has issued a warrant, based on the merits of the case. The petition was dismissed as infructuous. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Dec 2021 12:33:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299658 The Court held that a Magistrate is not mandatorily required to issue a bailable warrant when taking cognizance of a non-bailable offense if the accused has not obtained anticipatory bail. It was clarified that the discretion of the Magistrate under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. is not restricted by Section 438(3) unless anticipatory bail has been granted. Additionally, the High Court or Sessions Court can grant anticipatory bail even after a Magistrate has issued a warrant, based on the merits of the case. The petition was dismissed as infructuous. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299658