IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1001 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1001 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1001 OF 2008 Dungarsing Chandansing Parmar ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Subhash Jha, i/b Law Global, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 28.4.2008. DATED: 28.4.2008. DATED: 28.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the application and the material available on record. THE FACTS:- THE FACTS:- THE FACTS:- 2. The applicant has moved present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) to seek anticipatory bail in connection with any offence concerning Sections 454, 380 and/or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code registered with any of the Police Station in Cities of Pune, Thane, Mumbai and/or in the State of Goa and/or any Police Stations within the State of Maharashtra with further directions to the respondents to give him 72 hours advance notice to the applicant before effecting his arrest. 3. The above application has been strongly opposed by the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:- RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:- RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- 4. Mr Jha, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an employee working with one Mr Mukesh Moolchand Parmar, who deals in jewellery. The applicant till now has been arrested in C.R. Nos. 201 of 2007, 262 of 2007, 281 of 2007, 369 of 2007, 644 of 2007, 19 of 2008, 20 of 2008, and 21 of 2008 registered with Deccan Gymkhana Police Station, Pune. The applicant is on bail in almost all the C.Rs. 5. Mr Jha urged that, in view of the complaints made against Police Officer by the applicant, he is ( 3 ) being harassed by the Police Department. He further submits that the applicant is not aware as to in how many cases he would be falsely implicated. He, thus, submits that the applicant should, therefore, be granted pre-arrest bail in connection with any of the offences which may be registered against him under Sections 454/380 read with Section 411 of the I.P.C. with any of the Police Stations in the States of Maharashtra and Goa. 6. Mr Jha in support of his submissions sought to rely upon various remand applications and some of the orders passed by the various learned Single Judges of this Court bearing Criminal Application No. 157 of 2008 dated 12th February, 2008, Criminal Application No. 582 of 2005 dated 4th February, 2005 and Anticipatory Bail Application No. 550 of 1997 dated 17.4.1997 (all unreported). 7. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submits that the allegatious made against the police officers are beaseless. They were made only with a view to secure blanket order of bail and avoid arrest so as to ( 4 ) prevent investigation of the various offences committed by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is habitual offender. He habitually purchases gold ornaments from thieves. He placed reliance on the unreported judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Application No. 2914 of 1997, wherein such prayer was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 8. The learned A.P.P. further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1980)2 Supreme Court Cases 565 Supreme Court Cases 565 Supreme Court Cases 565 no such blanket order can be passed. 9. The learned A.P.P. has also placed reliance on the case of Adri Dharan Das V. State of W.B. Adri Dharan Das V. State of W.B. Adri Dharan Das V. State of W.B. (2005) 4 S.C.C. 303, (2005) 4 S.C.C. 303, (2005) 4 S.C.C. 303, wherein Apex Court said that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an ( 5 ) offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, then power can be exercised under Section 438 of the Code so as to protect liberty of the person. The power being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums i.e.the Court of Session or the High Court. It is the power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation is in non-bailable offences. The learned A.P.P. has thus, prayed for rejection of the application for anticipatory bail in the form in which it is prayed for. CONSIDERATION:- CONSIDERATION:- CONSIDERATION:- ------------- ------------- ------------- 10. Having heard rival parties, none of the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court can be said to have any ratio. Those orders are passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Gurubaksh Singh Gurubaksh Singh Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 565 565 in para 40 of the decision observed as under: ( 6 ) "We have said that there is one proposition formulated by the High Court with which we are inclined to agree. That is proposition (2), We agree that a ’blanket order’ of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. This flows from the very language of the section which as discussed above, requires the applicant to show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant’s apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under Section 438 (1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". 12. The Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das v. State The Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das v. State The Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 933 of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 933 of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 933 has observed as under: "16. ....A blanket order should not be generally passed. It flows from the very language of the Section which requires the applicant to show that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant’s apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. Normally, a direction should not issue to the effect that the ( 7 ) applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". Such "blanket order" should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 is a device to secure the individual’s liberty, it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely." 13. The applicant, in my view, is not entitled to any such blanket order. Firstly, because this Court does not have jurisdiction on the other parts of the State falling within the jurisdiction over Aurangabad and Nagpur Bench. Similarly, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with crimes registered in the State of Goa. Secondly, apart from the above, no blanket order can be passed in favour of the applicant in any class or classes of the offence giving weapon in the hand of the accused to use it as a licence to keep himself away from the investigating agency and to go on committing series of offences. 14. Apart from the above, having seen the material available on record and looking to the antecedents of the applicant-accused, this is not a fit case for ( 8 ) grant of anticipatory bail even on merits. 15. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 16. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial crimes stated in para 4 of the order. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)