( 1 ) IN as much as the petitioner is the same and as common questions of law are involved, all these petitions can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix may be set forth thus: The petitioner has been working as the Secretary in Primary Agricultural co-operative Credit Society of Nidamanuru. The said Society falls within the jurisdiction of Kumool District Central Co-operative bank, Suryaraopet Branch. The Circle supervisor of the said Bank reported misappropriation of the Bank funds in primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit society of Nidamanuru. Basing on his report, the Branch Manager of Suryaraopet branch of the Kurnool District Central co-operative Bank lodged a report with the Police alleging misappropriation of funds of the Society to the tune of Rs. 14 lakhs, whereon, as many as four crimes have been registered against the petitioner and others by Patamata Law and Order Police Station, vijayawada in Crime Nos. 434 to 437 of 2001 under Sections 408, 468, 476 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of APP DFE Act of 1999. The investigation has been in progress. The petitioner was arrested on 30. 10. 2001 in connection with the Crime No. 436 of 2001 and was remanded to judicial custody. He filed Crl. M. P. No. 1266 of 2000 seeking bail and he was granted bail in that case. The petitioner apprehending arrest in other three crimes has not produced the sureties although bail has been granted to him. The petitioner, therefore, filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the remaining crimes. He pleads that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated although the receipts in these cases have been given by the President of the Society.

( 3 ) IT has been contended before me that the petitioner has not been arrested in connection with the left out three crimes purposefully with an intention to see that he is arrested again the moment he is released pursuant to the bail granted to him in Crime No. 436 of 2001 and likewise one after another in the other crimes so as to see that the petitioner continues to be in jail.

( 4 ) A question has arisen during the course of the arguments in these petitions as to whether the petitioner is deemed to have been in custody in other crimes also although there has been no formal arrest in connection with those crimes.

( 5 ) THE problem might arise time and again where series of crimes are registered against a person and he is arrested only in connection with one of those crimes without showing any formal arrest in connection with the other crimes. In view of the importance of the question that has arisen in these cases, Sri C. Padamanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel, has been requested to assist the Court and on his consent he has been appointed as amicus curiae. While expressing grateful thanks to him this Court records with appreciation the able assistance rendered by the learned senior Counsel.

( 6 ) THE learned senior Counsel contends that inasmuch as the petitioner is the accused in all the four crimes arising out of the same Police Station and pertains to the same Bank whereat he has been working, the custody of the petitioner in connection with one case can be construed as having been in custody in connection with the remaining cases. In this connection, the learned senior Counsel invited my attention to Sections 437 and 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for brevity ). While in sub-section (1) of section 437 of the Code it is said that when any person accused of, or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by the an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court he may be released on bail; in sub-section (1) Section 439 of the Code it is said that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail. The conspicuous absence of the expression "is arrested or detained without warrant or appears or is brought