IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2921 of 2011 MUKESH KUMAR MADHUKAR @ RAM BABU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 03.03.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 406,420 of the I. P. C. and Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The allegation is of taking 75,000/-40,000/- and 35,000/-rupees from the complainant for supply of medicine. Subsequently cheque of rupees 75,000/- got bounced. The petitioner is ready to pay the said amount of Rs. 75,000/-within a period of six months. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner above named be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today in connection with complaint case no. 272 (C) of 2009 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) 2 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J. M. Ist Class, Bhojpur at Ara, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned court below will accept the bail bond of the petitioner provisionally and on payment of Rs. 75,000/- by the petitioner within a period of six months, the provisional bail bond of the petitioner will be finally accepted. However, it is made clear that the reasonable apprehension of arrest for availing the provisions of filing anticipatory bail application not only arises in case of issuance of warrant of arrest but also in case of issuance summons. The only rider is that such apprehension of arrest should be in a non-bailable offence. So far as the judgment referred by the learned Sessions judge reported in 2009 S.C.254 is concerned, it is not applicable in the present case as in the 3 said case summons were issued for getting the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Section 108 of the Customs Act envisages power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. It is not a penal provision. Hence, issuance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act did not amount to any accusation, hence, there was no apprehension in the said case but in the present case summons were issued in a case of non bailable offences hence anticipatory bail application was maintainable. U. K. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)