This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein who figures as first accused in a case registered as Crime No.18 of 2009, on the file of D-2 Police Station, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, another offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a)(1) (b) of The Arms Act and offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act. The earlier petition filed before this Court for the very same relief for the very same case, which had been taken on file as Crl.O.P.No.2349 of 2009, was dismissed on the ground that the petition did not contain the signature of the petitioner, nor was it supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and that even the memo of appearance did not contain the signature of the petitioner. The said order was passed on 16.03.2009 in which it was also held that a prima facie case for grave offences punishable under Sections 397 and 307 IPC was made out. Despite the fact that the previous petition was dismissed citing the above said reasons, the petitioner has chosen to file the present petition with the very same defects.

2. This Court by an order dated 22.06.2009 directed the Registry to submit a report as to how this petition happened to be numbered despite the presence of such defects. On earlier occasions, this Court directed the office by way of judicial orders not to entertain petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if such petitions are neither signed by the petitioner nor supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and not even accompanied by a memo of appearance containing the signature of the petitioner. Despite such directions, petitions are being filed with such defects and this is one such petition filed for the second time even after the dismissal of the earlier petition pointing out the said defects. In view of the fact that the office has come forward with an explanation that they have to act according to the oral instructions of the Judge concerned dealing with the applications for anticipatory bail, this Court deems it fit to pass an elaborate order detailing the procedure to be followed by the office in entertaining applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

3. For the sake of convenience, the provision found in Section 438 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

“438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:-

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

(1-A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecu