JUDGMENT
N.M. Kasliwal, J.
1. The petitioner has moved an application under Section 482 CrPC for modifying the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 9th April, 1981 to the extent that the condition put by the learned Sessions Judge, that the police can arrest the accused petitioner for making recovery under Section 27 of the Act may be set aside.
2. The petitioner moved an application Under Section 438 CrPC which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge but in the order granting anticipatory bail he has put a condition that in case the Police had sufficient grounds for making discovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act then it can arrest the petitioner and release him on bail immediately after making such recovery The learned Sessions Judge in this regard has placed reliance on certain observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Guru Bux Singh v. Stare of Punjab 1980 Cr.L.R. 477.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was not the ratio of the aforesaid case decided by the Supreme Court that it permitted the Police to make an arrest of the accused while making discovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
4. In Gurubux Singh’s case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court while deciding the question of anticipatory bail have laid down that the order of anticipatory bail does not in any way directly or indirectly take away from the Police their right to investigate into the charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. Two usual conditions are incorporated in such orders, one, which requires the applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not temper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. While granting relief Under Section 438 CrPC, proper conditions can be imposed Under Section 438(2) as to ensure an uninterrputed investigation. Their Lordships further observed that one of such conditions can even be that in the event of the Police making out a case of likely discovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Their Lordships further observed that they were unable to agree that anticipatory bail should be refused if a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the Police Under Section 167(2) of the Code is made out by the investigation agency. It has further been observed that:
Besides if and when the occasion arises it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this court in State of U.P. v. Deomen Upadhyaya to the effect that when a person not in custody approached a Police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the Police.
5. In my view the above observations clearly lay down that even a person who has been granted anticipatory bail and when called by the Police for interrogation and makes any discovery then it will fall within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to give any direction to allow the Police to arrest a person who has been granted anticipatory Bail. If that is done that it would defeat the very purpose of releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail. A direction is usually given in such case that the petitioner shall assist the investigation and would appear at the Police Station whenever called upon for this purpose and at that time if there are sufficient grounds before the Police authorities they can take action for the discovery to be made by such persons and such discovery will come within the purview of the Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
6. Thus, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 9th April, 1981, giving a direction for arresting the petitioner is quashed and the rest of the order is maintained. The Police authorities can take action in the manner indicated in this order.