DEEPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) ALMOST two centuries and a decade back thus spoke Edmund Burke :"men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. "similar note was expressed by E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of U. S. Court of Appeals :"in an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty itself is the product restraints; it is inherently a composite of restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn. Freedom, I say, is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints. There is no liberty without order. There is no order without systematized restraint. Restraints are the substance without which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The great problem of the democratic process is not to strip menof restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the maximum development of man's capabilities, not in a massive globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realization of each separate human mind, soul, and body; not in mute, motionless meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity. "thus, Liberty, the priceless treasure of human soul, is not an absolute abstract concept. True it is, individual liberty is the most important aspect of human existence but it has to be guided and governed by law. The individuality and the power to exercise free will cannot be given total freedom. Liberty is to be achieved by rule of law which includes the procedural law. Procedures are to be followed as they are the hallmark of authenticity and exposit sacrosanctity. The individuality and the power to exercise free will cannot be given total freedom. Liberty is to be achieved by rule of law which includes the procedural law. Procedures are to be followed as they are the hallmark of authenticity and exposit sacrosanctity. Sometimes procedure is evolved to curb wanton moves of the unscrupulous litigants and to curtail the unwarranted passion of an unethical and unprincipled minds and further to nip the unnecessary and uncalled for problems in the bud. ( 2 ) I have taken recourse to the aforesaid prefatory note as the circumstances under which these two applications came to be filed depict a matrix which is not only unfortunate and unbecoming but also disturbing. The applicant, Shri V. P. Shrivastava seeking concession of anticipatory bail from this Court in connection with Crime No. 32/99 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with S. 34 of Indian Penal Code filed M. Cr. C. No. 3672/99. The application was admitted on 3-6-1999. Learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of the State and undertook to requisition the Case Diary by next date of hearing. The matter was posted to 12-7-1999. It is worthnothing here that the said application was filed by Mr. Sharad Verma, a learned member of this Bar. The memo of appearance dated 21-5-1999 clearly reveals that Mr. Verma was instructed by Mr. V. P. Shrivastava. While this application was pending another petition was filed describing the petition as one to bring certain supplementary facts on record in connection with the application for anticipatory bail which had already been filed. In the said petition in Paragraph 22 it was stated "this is first bail application". The prayer in the application was couched in the following manner :"therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct for the ends of justice release of the accused-appellant in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 32/1999 by P. S. Bhedaghat, Distt. Jabalpur, and pass such order and further orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. "registry of this Court registered this application by giving a new number i. e. M. Cr. C. No. 4633/99. Memo of appearance was filed by Mr. S. C. Chaturvedi as instructed by Mr. V. P. Shrivastava. A no objection certificate was obtained from Mr. Sharad Verma on 13-7-1999. "registry of this Court registered this application by giving a new number i. e. M. Cr. C. No. 4633/99. Memo of appearance was filed by Mr. S. C. Chaturvedi as instructed by Mr. V. P. Shrivastava. A no objection certificate was obtained from Mr. Sharad Verma on 13-7-1999. This application was listed on 14-7-1999 before the Additional Registrar. Due to non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner it was adjourned to 15-7-1999. On 15-7-1999 before the Additional Registrar it was submitted that the first application for grant of anticipatory bail was moved by a counsel who had no instruction from the applicant. It was further putforth that the grounds were not properly taken in first (earlier) bail application and therefore, the applicant had moved the present application. ( 3 ) AS chronology of events portray, M. Cr. C. No. 3672/99 was listed on 14-7-1999 and it was ordered by this Court that the matter should be listed along with M. Cr. C. No. 4633/99 in the next week. The matter was listed on 22-7-1999 and the same was adjourned as none was present for the applicant. ( 4 ) IT is apposite to mention here that on 13-7-1999 an affidavit sworn to by Mr. V. P. Shrivastava was filed. From the said affidavit it transpires that he had not engaged Mr. Sharad Verma as his counsel and he had never instructed him. That apart, he also stated that certain facts were erroneously mentioned in the earlier application. In the meantime, the son of the applicant filed an application on 29-6-1999 for withdrawal of M. Cr. C. No. 3672/99 on the ground that wrong facts, wrong designation and other erroneous facts were mentioned. Though this application was filed by the son of the applicant, Mr. Chaturvedi who had appeared on behalf of the applicant on 14-7-1999 did not apprise this Court with regard to the same. It is also apparent that the application filed by the son of the applicant has not been signed by any counsel. Today, both the applications were listed for hearing. MR. Sharad Verma did not appear when the matter was called. Mr. Chaturvedi contended that his application should be heard on merits. His application was filed later when the first application was pending before this Court for adjudication. Submission of Mr. Today, both the applications were listed for hearing. MR. Sharad Verma did not appear when the matter was called. Mr. Chaturvedi contended that his application should be heard on merits. His application was filed later when the first application was pending before this Court for adjudication. Submission of Mr. Chaturvedi is that he had not filed an independentapplication but an application for taking supplementary facts on record. On a first look the argument of Mr. Chaturvedi appears to be quite attractive but on a close scrutiny it uncoils itself, sans substance. On the first page there is mention of original application number and description given is supplementary facts to the application for anticipatory bail. The Registry thought it appropriate to register it as an independent application and to do so it might have taken note of prayer as well as description made in the body of the petition, especially the averment made in paragraph 22. Mr. Chaturvedi canvassed the second application should be treated as an annexe to the first bail application and the same should be heard on merits. Ordinarily this would not have given rise to 'vexata quaestia' but the circumstances have uncurtained a different scenario which cannot be viewed with latitude. Mr. V. P. Shrivastava, the applicant herein has filed an affidavit in a nonchalant manner to the effect that he had never engaged Mr. Sharad Verma. Mr. Sharad Verma appearing at a later stage categorically stated that he had argued the matter before the learned Sesions Judge and filed an application before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail obtaining instructions to do so. ( 5 ) ON a perusal of the affidavit of the applicant, the application for withdrawal filed by the son of the applicant and the contents of the supplementary application, it is graphically clear that the situation is not a delectable one. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. S. C. Datt, learned senior counsel; Mr. Ajit Singh, Mr. R. Banerjee and Mr. Manish Datt who were present during the proceeding volunteered to assist the Court. Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned senior counsel, submitted that the present case is an unfortunate one and some corrective measures are warranted. Mr. S. C. Datt, learned Senior counsel, stated that no litigant should be allowed to put the blame on the counsel for no apparent reason. Mr. Manish Datt who were present during the proceeding volunteered to assist the Court. Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned senior counsel, submitted that the present case is an unfortunate one and some corrective measures are warranted. Mr. S. C. Datt, learned Senior counsel, stated that no litigant should be allowed to put the blame on the counsel for no apparent reason. Mr. Ajit Singh referred to sub-rule (5) to Rule 8 of the Chapter V of the M. P. High Court Rules and Orders. Mr. Banerjee expressed that if the litigants are allowed to make such affidavits it would tarnish the image of the Bar. Mr. Manish Datt submitted that filing of a bail application when one is pending is not a healthy trend. ( 6 ) TRUE it is, Mr. Shrivastava was very anxious to obtain the privilege of anticipatory bail but he was required to conduct himself. Any litigant who approaches a Court of Law for grant of any relief, he should keep in mind that his conduct must be fair and he must approach the Court with clean hands. He must approach with propriety showing due respect to the norms laid down by law. Every litigant must bear in mind that majesty of law shall not countenance apathetic attitude and not permit him to behave as if he is in a laboratory. Mr. Chaturvedi may be sanguine in his understanding that his application is an appendix to the earlier application but the tenor of the application does not so reveal and hence, no fault can be found with the Registry for registering it as a separate application. The assertion that Mr. Shrivastava had never instructed Mr. Sharad Verma, cannot be accepted as the gospel truth. ( 7 ) THE present situation has arisen because the petition under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. was filed without being supported by an affidavit, Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. S. C. Datt, Mr. Banerjee, Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Manish Datt, learned counsel, fairly stated that if the application for anticipatory bail is supported by an affidavit then the litigant would not be able to put the blame on the counsel and unpleasant situation would be avoided. The anxiety of the Bar was writ large when the learned counsel made the aforesaid suggestion. Suggestion apart, this is also the requirement of law. The anxiety of the Bar was writ large when the learned counsel made the aforesaid suggestion. Suggestion apart, this is also the requirement of law. In this context, I may usefully refer to the language of S. 438 (1) of Cr. P. C. which reads as under :"when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an 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; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. "it is incumbent on the person who seeks to obtain the privilege of anticipatory bail to satisfy the Court that there is apprehension for his arrest. This is a condition-precedent to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. In this context, I mayprofitably refer to the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980 Cri LJ 1125) wherein their Lordships have laid down as under (para 35) :"section 438 (1) of the Code laysdown a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief', for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively, because it is then alone that the Court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. S. 438 (1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. S. 438 (1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusation, likely or unlikely. "in view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that a heavy onus is cast on the applicant seeking the privilege enshrined under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. to satisfy the Court, that he is entitled under law to obtain the said concession. IT is to be borne in mind that an application under S. 438 (1) of Cr. P. C. has to be applied by the person who has reasons to believe that he may be arrested of an accusation of having committed of a non-bailable offence. The language used by the Parliament is "he may apply to the Court. " Thus, an application by the accused is mandatory. Existence of the reasons of belief has to be based on bona fide reasons of belief, and it is the sine qua non. It is to be noted that a bona fide reason of belief is not a colourable belief. The accused has the special knowledge with regard to his apprehension. The Court has the obligation to scrutinise the same with objectivity of approach to find out that there is proof of his apprehension. Hence, the application has to be supported by an affidavit of the applicant or by a family member or a friend or a pairokar who has been duly authorised by the applicant. The authorisation should be filed along with the affidavit. This would subserve the cause of justice and strike a balance between the individual liberty and the concept of 'composite restraint'. ( 8 ) IT is to be noted here that an application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. can be made to the Court of Session. It is hereby made clear that every application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. filed before any Court of Law should be supported by an affidavit as has been indicated above. ( 9 ) LASTLY, it was submitted by Mr. P. C. can be made to the Court of Session. It is hereby made clear that every application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. filed before any Court of Law should be supported by an affidavit as has been indicated above. ( 9 ) LASTLY, it was submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi that the bail application may not be rejected for the conduct of the applicant as he was too anxious to obtain the concession of anticipatory bail. Noting the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, while declining to entertain his prayer for bail under these circumstances, I am inclined to observe that the applicant would be at liberty to file a properly constituted petition which shall be considered on its own merits. ( 10 ) THE directions contained in this order as far as it relates to filing of an affidavit while preferring an application under S. 438 of Cr. P. C. shall become effective from 1st September, 1999. Let a copy of this order be sent to all the Sessions Judges of the State. ( 11 ) THE applications are accordingly disposed of. Applications dismissed. .