Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) SAKHI Chand made complaint under sections 467, 468 and 420, Indian Penal Code, to the Superintendent of police, Patiala, who forwarded it to Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala, where F.I.R. No. 249 was registered on November 20, 1973, on the basis of the said complaint. Thereafter, applicants made an application for bail to the sessions Judge, Patiala, who allowed the same on December 19, 1973. Sakhi Chand came to this Court against that order(Cr. M. 250 -M of 1974) and the said order was set aside on the ground that anticipatory bail was not permissible. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, issued warrants of arrest on March 19, 1974. The applicants have now come to this Court for cancellation of the said warrants and also for review of the order dated March 1, 1974, and for bail. The prayer for bail and review of the order dated March 1, 1974, has been resisted by the State and by the learned counsel for Sakhi Chand. Since there is no bar to move application for cancellation of the order for bail afresh, I do not think that the order dated March 1, 1974, can be reviewed, because the applicants could move for cancellation of the same and they could also move for their bail fresh. So, the review application (Cr. Misc. 689 -M of 1 974) is declined.
(2.) I do not think that the learned Sessions Judge had any jurisdiction to issue warrants, for the obvious reason that no case, in which he could issue the warrants, was pending before him. So, warrants issued by the learned Sessions Judge on March 19, 1974, are cancelled, being without jurisdiction. Anticipatory bail was not permissible under the old Code of Criminal Procedure. So, the application, if deemed to be under the old Code, stands dismissed. The learned counsel for the applicants has made oral application for allowing bail under the New Criminal Procedure Code. In the case in hand, the F.I.R. was registered as back as on November 20, 1973, and the investigation agency has not made up its mind by this time although about four months have elapsed, to arrest the applicants, much less to conclude the investigation. Having regard to the inordinate delay being shown by the Investigating Agency in the matter I feel that a direction under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. 1973, should be given. Hence, I direct under sub section (1) of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, that if the Investigating Agency Takes decision at any stage of the investigation to arrest the applicants, they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The applicants are directed through their counsel; to appear before the Investigating Officer on April 19, 1974.;