Point of Law: An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in sense that it should not enable accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The petitioner, vide the Crl. M.C. No.298/2022 assails the impugned order dated 8.7.2021 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, in FIR No. 218/2020 Police Station EOW registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide which the order on anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent No.2 S. Venkatakrishanan was disposed of with directions to the Investigating Agency that in case if during the course of investigation the arrest of the applicant was found imminent, the applicant be served with advance seven working days notice so that he can avail the legal remedies available to him.

2. Vide Crl. M.C. No. 2842/2022, the very same petitioner M/s Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. assails the impugned order dated 17.5.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in relation to FIR No. 218/2020 Police Station EOW registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide which order qua the anticipatory bail applications filed in Bail matters bearing Nos. 388/2022 of the accused person P.K. Ramesh there were observations in relation to the previous anticipatory bail application having been withdrawn on 8.7.2021 (apparently the reference to S. Venkatakrishanan the respondent No.2 in Crl. M.C. No.298/2022) with observations that the investigation was at a nascent stage and seven (7) working days notice was thus directed to be given before any arrest was made. Further vide the impugned order dated 17.5.2022 it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as the Investigating Officer had not even seen the investigation carried out by the Chennai police it was deemed fit that the direction for issuance of five (5) working days prior notice be reiterated and it was directed that the accused would whole heartedly cooperate with the investigation and join the same in order to assist the IO in deciphering the documents which had been handed over in a heap and explain the transactions to the Investigating Officer properly in response to his queries, subject to the constitutional right available to the accused and that the Investigating Officer would on reaching a conclusion regarding siphoning of money, or misappropriation or in case of non cooperation by the accused take a decision regarding requirement of arrest of the accused and act accordingly. It was further observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, New Delhi that needless to say that the provision for anticipatory bail has to be applied judiciously, as granting such as relief at initial stages of investigation, where the material is in possession of an accused was not adequately available with the Investigating Officer may prejudice the case of the prosecution and victims and on the other hand denying such relief also at that stage may interfere with individual liberty and it was thus observed that the accused as well as the Investigating Agency must both act rationally so that any unfortunate haste in the matter is avoided.

3. Vide Crl. M.C. No. 2848/2022, the very same order assailed in Crl. M.C. No. 2842/2022, i.e., the order dated 17.5.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was assailed in as much as it is a common order in relation to the bail applications of Mr. P.K. Ramesh (Bail Appln. No.388/2022), Maria Ramesh (Bail Appln. No.389/2022) and S. Venkatakrishanan (Bail Appln. No.259/2022) accused arrayed in FIR No.218/2020 Police Station EOW registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, i.e. the respondent No.2 S. Venkatakrishanan in Crl. M.C. No. 298/2022 and Crl. M.C. No. 3348/2022, P.K. Ramesh arrayed as respondent No.2 in Crl. M.C. No. 2842/2022 and as respondent No.3 in Crl. M.C. No. 3241/2021 and Ms. Maria Ramesh arrayed as respondent No.2 Crl. M.C. No. 2848/2022 and Crl. M.C. No. 3421/2021 filed by the very same petitioner. The order dated 14.6.2021 of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the very same FIR No. 218/2020 Police St