General judicial directions regarding anticipatory bail procedures cannot impose mandatory requirements across all cases, emphasizing the need for individualized judicial discretion.

1 In State of Kerala v. Vishnu ( 2006 (1) KLT 445 ), a learned Single Judge of this Court gave detailed general directions to be followed by the High Court and the criminal courts while filing criminal proceedings. In Para.34 of the judgment in Vishnu's case, the learned Judge gave the following directions:
"34. Though I am not cancelling the pre arrest bail granted to the respondent, I am of the view that certain directions are to be issued to prevent such incidents in future. This Court and the Criminal Courts shall follow the following matters while filing the criminal proceedings.
(i) Every pleader appearing for the accused or complainant shall file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration specified in R.31 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. If the pleader is instructed by any person other than the accused, his name and address shall be stated in the memo itself. If the pleader is appearing for more than one accused/complainant, such details in respect of all accused/ complainants shall be stated in the memo. If necessary, the pleader may file separate memo of appearance for each person. The words which are not necessary shall be scored off.
(ii) If proceedings is filed for and on behalf of person under custody and upon the instruction by a person who claims to represent the person under custody the application shall be accompanied by an affidavit. The deponent shall state that he has been authorised by the applicant/applicants to file the application or proceedings and the applicant/applicants has/have not filed any similar petition for the same relief either before that Court or any other Court and the same is pending. He should also state that during the pendency of that application or proceedings in application for same relief shall be filed either before that Court or any other Court.
(iii) The Registry of this Court as well as the offices of the lower Courts shall at the time of filing of proceedings insist that every application or proceedings filed by a person who is not under custody shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by that person himself. In case there are more than one applicant, each one of them shall file separate affidavits or a joint affidavit sworn to by all persons together in accordance with law.
(iv) The affidavit/affidavits filed shall be in proper form and attested as provided under R.37 to 46 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The affidavit/affidavits shall contain an averment to the effect that the application is filed as per his/their own instructions.
(v) If the petitioner is under legal disability or prevented by sufficient cause, the person who instructs the pleader shall file an application for leave supported by an affidavit as stated in clauses (iii) and (iv) above.
(vi) The Sessions Judges shall insist for the production of the Case Diary and verify the same before passing orders. The investigating officer shall be directed to file a statement in the proceedings and the same shall form part of the records.
(vii) This Court and Sessions Courts shall communicate copies of the orders to the lower courts concerned forthwith.
(viii) The application for permanent exemption shall be accompanied by a special Vakkalath as provided under R.33 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and an affidavit/ affidavits sworn to by the applicant/applicants claiming permanent exemption.
(ix) The application or proceedings filed claiming custody objects shall be accompanied by a special Vakkalath as provided under R.35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and also an affidavit/affidavits of the person/persons claiming custody."

2 Direction No.(iii) issued by the learned Judge was that when a person who is not under custody while applying for a pre arrest bail, commonly called "anticipatory bail", it should be supported by an affidavit. Petitioner in this case filed such a bail application without filing the affidavit from the petitioner. After defects were noticed, the learned counsel for the petitioner file