Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 26-7-2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 3019 of 2014. A case in Crime No. 191 of 2013 of Humayun Nagar Police Station was registered against the petitioner and others on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Chinnam Naga Venu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, when the same was referred by the learned Magistrate to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 1 therein. It would appear that number of First Information Reports (FIRs) were lodged against the petitioner herein. This Court through orders dated 30-7-2014 in Crl.P.M.P. Nos. 8643, 8642 and 8641 of 2014 in Criminal Petition Nos. 4359, 4360 and 4361 of 2014 directed the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court. This Court passed a direction through orders in Crl.P. Nos. 4358 to 4362 of 2014 on 26-6-2014 granting liberty to the petitioner herein to surrender before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and other Courts before whom he is involved in various cases. It was further directed that the concerned Courts shall take the petitioner into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner shall comply with the directions of this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order and move the concerned Courts for grant of bail. Curiously, this Court also directed the concerned Courts to grant bail with conditions. It would appear that the petitioner could not approach the Court within the time prescribed. Consequently, Crl.P.M.P. Nos. 8643, 8642 and 8641 of 2014 were filed by the petitioner. Extension of time by 15 days was granted in favour of the petitioner to surrender and move the Court for grant of regular bail.

2. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered and moved Crl.M.P. No. 3018 of 2014 before the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for grant of bail. The learned Magistrate recorded that he has no alternative but to grant bail in view of the directions of this Court through orders in Crl.P. No. 4361 of 2014 and imposed certain conditions through the same order, dated 26-7-2014.

3. While so, the prosecution filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 3019 of 2014 seeking for police custody of the petitioner herein for a period of 7 days. The learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate passed orders on 26-7-2014 on which day orders in Crl.M.P. No. 3018 of 2014 were passed, granting police custody of the petitioner for a period of 3 days taking possible precautions. Questioning this order, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.

4. The first of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court is attempting to do something by way of giving with one hand and taking away the same with the other hand. In view of the orders in Crl.P. Nos. 4359, 4360 and 4361 of 2014, the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had no alternative but to enlarge the petitioner on bail/anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court granted police custody thus taking away the bail granted to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the case of the prosecution and the impugned order on various grounds. Inter alia, he submitted that under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C., an Investigating Officer who arrests or detains an accused shall submit such a person to the Court together with the CD. File within 24 hours from the time of arrest. Further, Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. reads that the provision applies to an arrest if the same falls within Section 57 of the Code. Section 57 of the Code reiterates that a person arrested shall not be detained with Police for more than 24 hours without prior permission of the Magistrate.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not arrested within the meaning of Section