Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Adv. Ms. Minal Chandnani, Adv. Mr. Naresh Shamnani, Adv. Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Ms. Anshala Verma, Adv. M/S. Juristrust Law Offices
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications when the accused is already in custody in relation to a different offence are as follows:

1. No statutory restriction: There is no explicit provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) or other statutes that prohibits an accused who is already in custody for one offence from applying for anticipatory bail in connection with a different offence. The scheme of the law allows such applications to be considered independently (!) (!) .

2. Right to apply for anticipatory bail: An accused in custody in relation to one offence retains the right to seek anticipatory bail for another offence, provided he has a "reason to believe" that he may be arrested in relation to that other offence. Custody in one case does not eliminate the apprehension of arrest in a different case (!) (!) .

3. Effect of arrest versus formal arrest: Actual physical arrest involves confinement of the person, but submission to custody by words or actions can also constitute arrest. Formal arrest does not necessarily mean the accused is in police custody; he may remain in judicial custody. Therefore, an accused can still have a "reason to believe" of arrest in relation to a different offence, even if he is already in judicial custody in another case (!) (!) (!) .

4. Procedural mechanisms: An accused can be formally arrested in relation to a different offence while in custody in another case, either after release from the first case or through formal arrest procedures such as obtaining a prisoner transit warrant. Such procedures do not bar the right to apply for anticipatory bail (!) (!) (!) .

5. Investigation and remand rights: The investigating agency can seek remand of the accused while he is in custody for a different offence, provided no anticipatory bail order has been passed in relation to the subsequent offence. Once anticipatory bail is granted, the agency cannot seek remand in relation to that offence, but can do so in relation to the original offence (!) (!) .

6. Legal and constitutional principles: The right to seek anticipatory bail is rooted in the principles of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The law emphasizes that this right should not be arbitrarily restricted, and each application should be considered on its merits, without blanket restrictions based solely on custody status in another case (!) (!) .

7. Judicial discretion: Courts have a broad and discretionary power to decide anticipatory bail applications, which must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Restrictions on this power are only explicitly provided in certain statutes or specific provisions, and in the absence of such restrictions, courts are free to entertain such applications (!) (!) .

8. Implication of statutory restrictions: Only specific statutory provisions or amendments explicitly restrict anticipatory bail in certain offences (e.g., offences punishable under particular sections). Otherwise, the law presumes that an accused can seek anticipatory bail even if he is in custody for another offence (!) (!) .

9. Conclusion: The law supports the view that an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused already in custody for a different offence is maintainable. Such applications should be decided independently and on their merits, and custody in one case does not bar the exercise of the right to seek anticipatory bail in relation to another offence (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal framework and judicial principles affirm that custody for one offence does not preclude an accused from applying for anticipatory bail in connection with a different offence. Each case must be considered on its individual facts, and the right to seek anticipatory bail remains intact unless explicitly restricted by law.