The court clarified that the power of the court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is limited to granting or rejecting anticipatory bail and does not include the power to direct the Investigating Agency to issue notice prior to arrest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to set aside the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in ECIR/20/DLZO1/2015/AD PMLA.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed the application for anticipatory bail on 6.4.2017 and Ld. Judge vide the impugned order, while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail has passed the direction that the petitioner agency shall serve three working days notice, on proposing to arrest the petitioner in this case.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the directions passed by the Ld. Judge are contrary to the settled law. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has held that the directions of this nature cannot be passed while disposing of application for anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305 in identical circumstances has held as under: -

"64. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, neither of the above directions can be said to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh and seeks to grant protection to respondents in respect of any non-bailable offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs. interferes and curtails the authority of Custom Officers from exercising statutory power of arrest a person said to have committed a non-bailable offence by imposing a condition of giving ten days prior notice, a condition not warranted by law. The order passed by the High Court to the extent of directions issued to the Custom Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside."

4. Further, submitted that said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court consistently and more recently in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdulla Jeelani (2017) 2SCC 779 The Supreme Court has reiterated the law that while exercising power under Section 438, the courts while disposing of the application cannot pass an order which would amount to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the principles of Section 438 Cr.P.C. not being followed. It is the settled law that the courts while exercising power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are governed by the provisions thereof and do not have any inherent power to pass order such as passed in the present case. The limited power available to the Courts exercising power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is to either grant or reject anticipatory bail. The courts are not empowered to travel beyond the dicta of the statute and pass directions not provided under the Act.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the present case relates to a scam involving approximately Rs.3600 crores and is commonly known as Bank of Baroda Scam. During the course of investigation, various persons have been arrested and the petitioner agency is still in the process of unearthing the trail and a large number of people are involved in the present scam. The impugned order passed by the Ld. Judge will hamper further investigation in the case. The respondent has not cooperated in the investigation and has filed the application for anticipatory bail. The Application for anticipatory Bail and the impugned order passed thereof did not even mention or take note of the gravity of offence therein.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the pursuant to the receipt of summons, the respondent appeared before the IO where he was manhandled and was forced to make statement as per his dictum. Thereafter, he moved an application seeking anticipatory bail and considering the situation, learned Court passed the impugned order by giving directions to the appellant authority that if they come to the conclusion that interrogation is necessary, they will give notice of three working days to the respondent in advance. Thereafter, he again joined