This case establishes the importance of timely arrest procedures and the separation of charges as essential to protecting individual rights under Article 21.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed with following prayers:

To call for the records leading to the detention of petitioner and the cases mentioned in Annexure A3 list and direct the release of petitioner with a direction to the investigating officers to issue notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. in case of fresh case registered against petitioner, if any, and grant 10 day’s time in such cases to approach courts of law before proceeding with such cases and such conditions, that this Hon’ble Court is deemed fit in the interest of justice.

2. The main prayer in this case is to release of petitioner with a direction to the investigating officers to issue notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in case of fresh case registered against petitioner, if any, and grant 10 day’s time in such cases to approach courts of law before proceeding with such cases. The petitioner is a promoter and director of several business establishments having operations in the southern states of India. He is in jail now.

3. When this case came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that in similar situation, this Court considered the issue in detail after considering the dictum of the Apex Court, in the judgment dated 25.08.2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No.230/2023. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“9. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Thomas P.Kuruvila, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.P.Narayanan, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.

10. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner can be clubbed together (ii) whether a comprehensive bail can be directed to be granted in all cases registered against the petitioner, deeming his date of arrest as 13.01.2023 and (iii) any other reliefs.

(i) Whether all the FIRs registered against the petitioner can be clubbed together?

11. In the instant case, 283 complaints are filed at different locations at different police stations in the State, all relating to separate and independent transactions. The nature of inducement, the quantum of the deposit, the place where the inducement was offered are all distinct, apart from the period for which the deposits were offered. The complainants are also different, and even the provisions of law applicable are also different in a few of the crimes. The complainants are also not parties to the writ petition. Therefore it would be prejudicial to the numerous depositors/complainants to club all those FIRs as a single offence solely for the convenience of the accused or that of the agency.

12. In Abhishek Singh Chauhan ’s case (supra), the Supreme Court directed clubbing all the FIRs registered in different States, treating the subsequently registered FIRs as statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The court also observed that if the accused has been granted bail in connection with the principal FIR, the bail so granted must enure in his favour until the court of competent jurisdiction cancels it, owing to supervening circumstances. The ratio of the said decision was sought to be applied to the crimes against the petitioner to club all the FIRs.

13. However, in a decision of a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court in Anubhav Mittal and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980), after noticing that the cheating and connected offences in the said case had occurred at different parts of the country and each victim having a right to prosecute his complaint through the law enforcement agency, held that the accused cannot demand conduct of investigation only with respect to a particular offence. It was also observed that the accused, who had mobilized funds from different parts of the country, could not plead his inconvenience of having to defend the case in multiple jurisdictions.

14. Thus, two divergent judgments of coordinate Benches governing the issue were brought to the notice of this Co