UMESH C. BANERJEE, J.:---This batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution by reason of supposed infraction of Article 21, were moved before this Court for the grant of an order for bail in the nature as prescribed under section 438 Cri.P.C., and in line with the orders dated 28-3-2000 in W.P. (Cri.) No. 256 of 1999 and dated 5-5-2000 in W.Ps. (Cri.) Nos. 72-75 of 2000 passed earlier by this Court. To crystallize the issue, the orders as passed earlier ought to be noticed at this juncture. The first of the two orders read as below: (JVG Group of Companies: Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 256 of 1999)

"It is not possible for us to order that all his cases pending in different States should be consolidated into one and brought before one Court. That would impose unwarranted and unnecessary hardships on the witnesses and investigating agency spread over those different States. Nor are we inclined to order the Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation in respect of all cases, and further that he would make himself available on any date when his presence is imperatively needed in that Court.

3. We permit the petitioner to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the cases pending in different courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one Single Court or more than one Court (depending upon the number of cases or the width of the area of the State concerned).

4. This order will come into effect only if the petitioner would surrender his passport in this Court. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel expressed a doubt that the petitioner would have already surrendered his passport before another Court pursuant to the order passed. In that case he can satisfy the Registrar General of this Court by an affidavit of the situation and the Registrar General can intimate the jail authorities concerned of that position.

5. We make it clear that it is open to the investigating agency in any case to move for cancellation of bail if any such investigating agency finds that the petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by this order :

In view of the above order we direct the jail authorities of the jail in which he is presently kept to release him forthwith on Registrar General of this Court intimating the jail authorities regarding the surrender of his passport as indicated above.

It is needless to say that this order will not be treated as a precedent and is passed only on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."

2. This Court also on a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in Kuber Group of Companies (Writ Petitions Nos. 72-75 of 2000 being the 2nd order as noticed hereinbefore) also passed a similar order to the following effect:

"1. If the petitioner is arrested in connection with any criminal case in his capacity as Managing Director/Director of JVG Group of Companies the arresting officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

2. Such relief shall be made after getting an assurance from him that he will be present in the Court concerned on the days when his case is posted. However, we make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to apply to the Court concerned for exempting him from personal appearance on condition that a Counsel on his behalf would be present on such posting dates and he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in that case, and further that he would make himself available on any date when his presence is imperatively needed in that Court.

3. We permit the petitioner to move the appropriate High Courts for bringing all the cases pending in different courts within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court to one single Court or more than one Court (depending upon the number of cases or the width of the area of the State is concerned).

4. This order will come into effect only if the petitioner would surrender his passp