VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law are involved in the present bunch of applications they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) For better appreciation of the issue of law emerging out of obtaining factual matrix it is essential to state the facts of the cases. The petitioners in MCrC Nos. 6431/97, 6443/97, 6444/97 and 6445/97 are the same, and because of institution of various crime numbers they have preferred four applications. MCrC No. 7067/97 relates to a different petitioner and the factual scenario is also different.

(3.) The facts as unfurled in MCrC No. 7067/97 are that the petitioner apprehending arrest in crime No. 584/93 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code had approached this Court under S. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'the Code') for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations relate to the incident which had taken place sometime in August, 1987. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is working as Stenographer to the Collector at Datia and other circumstances, this Court extended the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner directing that in the event of his arrest he would be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer and the said order would remain effective for a period of six weeks within which the petitioner was required to move the competent Court for grant of regular bail. After the said order was passed, on 24-10-97 the petitioner moved an application under S. 439 of the Code before the competent Court but the said Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was already on ad interim anticipatory bail by virtue of the protective order passed by this Court and he being not in custody, the application under S. 439 of the Code was not maintainable.