IMPORTANT POINT
A person in custody for one offense is not precluded from seeking anticipatory bail for another offense under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the statutory provisions do not impose such a restriction.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.806 of 2019 registered with Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of the IndianPenal Code.

3. The applicant is already in custody in ECIR No.10 of 2021.

4. In this backdrop, the first informant - intervener has raised an objection to the maintainability of the application for pre-arrest bail on the ground that a person who is already in custody is not entitled to seek a relief of pre-arrest bail in connection with the other crimes which have been registered against him.

5. As the issue of maintainability is sought to be raised on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 210. and the judgments of the learned Single Judges of Rajasthan and Allahabad High Courts in the cases of Sunil Kallani V/s. State of Rajasthan, 2022 0 Cri.L.J. 1378. and Rajesh Kumar Sharma V/s. C.B.I., 2022 0 Supreme (ALL) 1331. respectively, which seem to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit (supra), to lay down the proposition that a person who is already arrested is not entitled to seek prearrest bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Alnesh Akil Somji V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2002 0 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 61. struck a discordant note to hold that there is no embargo to prefer an application for pre-arrest bail even when a person is under arrest in another crime, the learned Counsel for the parties were heard on the point of maintainability of the application.

6. Mr. Shamnani, learned Counsel for the first informant, submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Alnesh Somji (Supra), does not consider the full import of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit (supra). On the contrary, Mr. Shamnani submitted, the learned Single Judges of Rajasthan and Allahabad High Courts in the case of Sunil Kallani V/s. State of Rajasthan, 2022 0 Cri.L.J. 1378. and Rajesh Kumar Sharma V/s. C.B.I. (supra), have correctly appreciated the ratio of the decision in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. (supra).

7. Amplifying the submission, Mr. Shamnani would urge that the prime reason for granting the relief of pre-arrest bail is to insulate a person, who apprehends arrest, from injury and humiliation which he would otherwise be subjected to in the event of an unjustified arrest, and, since the person who is already arrested cannot make a grievance of such possible injury and humiliation, such person is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail. This crucial factor was not considered by the learned Judge of this Court in the case of Alnesh Somji (supra), urged Mr. Shamnani.

8. Mr. Shamnani would further urge that having regard to the object of granting pre-arrest bail which is essentially to prevent an arrest of a person where the court finds that, in the circumstances of the case, there should not be any restraint on his personal liberty, a person who is already under arrest cannot seek such dispensation as it would be a contradiction in terms that an arrested person seeks protection from arrest, be it in another case.

9. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant, forcefully countered the submissions of Mr. Shamnani. It was submitted that on first principles, the objection to the maintainability of the application is misconceived. An arrest in one case, can never be construed to preclude a person from seeking a statutory remedy under Sec. 438 of the Code, where he is threatened with unjustified arrests in a number of cases. Taking such a view, according to Mr.Ponda, would jeopardise the cherished personal liberty irredeemably.

10. Mr. Ponda would further urge that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Alnesh Somji (supr