IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46991 of 2008 EDWARD MICHEL ELLIOT----------------------petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sunita Jastina D/o Satyendra Singh,R/o Mohalla Chondi Barh Behind of Alok Baldan, Mobile Tawar N.H.31, P.S. & P.O. Barh, Patna-----------------------------opp.parties ----------- 3. 26.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for anticipatory bail in a complaint case under Sections 498A of the Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He is stated to be the husband. A statement has been made on oath in the application that on the earlier occasion he has never given instruction to the learned counsel to withdraw the application. Considering that the matter relates to Section 498A of the Penal Code, the petitioner has an ex parte decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour in which complainant despite notice refused to appear. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st., Barh in A.B.P. No. 87/06 by order dated 8.9.06/11.9.06 proceeded to grant him anticipatory bail but left the conditions for the same to be fixed by the Magistrate before whom the petitioner was directed to appear. 2 Learned counsel submits that he, therefore, apprehends that when the petitioner will appear before the Magistrate he shall be taken into custody. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vests power in the High Court and the court of Sessions to grant bail in the event of arrest. The power to fix conditions for the same is vested in the High Court or the Sessions court as the case may be granting the pre arrest bail. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not visualize a truncated exercise of such power by the High Court or the Sessions Court granting bail itself, refusing to exercise statutory power under Section 438(2) and directing a person seeking pre arrest bail to appear before the Magistrate to fix the conditions of the same. The ingenuity of the impugned order is difficult to appreciate. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barh. The question of his arrest now does not arise. Let him appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st. Barh, within a period of four weeks from today when the conditions of his bail shall be fixed by the court. If the petitioner 3 fails to appear by filing an appropriate application for the purpose within the period of four weeks, obviously he shall be exposing himself to the risk of arrest. Dispensation of a justice is serious business, which apparently does not appear to be reflected in the impugned order. In the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is satisfied that this order must be communicated by Fax at the cost of the Court and not by the petitioner. (Navin Sinha,J.) spal/