Judgment Heard Mr. R. Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for petitioner, Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 in all the petitions. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By these Writ Petitions, the petitioner takes exception to the part of the orders dated 22.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 by which the respondent no.1 herein has been directed to give notice of 48 hours in case crime is registered against respondent no.2. 4. On 18.4.2012, the petitioner herein lodged report at Panaji Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against respondent no.2 in all the Writ Petitions. Apprehending arrest, respondent no.2 in each of these Writ Petitions filed Anticipatory Bail Applications No.156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 before Sessions Court, North Goa, Panaji which were made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa. 5. Say was filed in each of the anticipatory bail applications on behalf of respondent no.1 stating that though report alleging cheating, fraud and forgery had been lodged by the petitioner herein, no FIR was registered. 6. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for respondent no.2 herein submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa that he may be given prior notice in case crime was registered, in order to enable respondent no. 2 to move the Court for anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, while disposing of anticipatory bail application made the following observations in the orders passed disposing of the four applications. “In the background since no crime is registered, application stands dismissed. The respondent, however, shall give notice for 48 hours in case crime is registered, so as to enable the applicant to move the Court.” 8. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji alleging commission of aforesaid offences by respondent no.2 in each of the above petitions. In the event an order on the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is passed by the Magistrate, investigating officer will not be able to arrest respondent no. 2 without giving notice in view of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications. In the event an order on the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is passed by the Magistrate, investigating officer will not be able to arrest respondent no. 2 without giving notice in view of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications. Therefore, he has locus to file the present petitions. 9. Mr. R. De Sa, placed reliance upon the Judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others, (2008) 12 SCC 305 and submitted that while disposing of anticipatory bail applications the Judge could not have directed the investigating agency to give notice of 48 hours in case crime was registered. 10. Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. S. Dessai, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 fairly conceded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have passed the part of the order which has been impugned in the present petitions. 11. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 has considered several aspects to be considered while considering the application for anticipatory bail and in paragraph 35 has held that filing of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has further held that imminence of likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an FIR is not yet filed. 12. In the case of Padam Narain Aggarwal, the Apex Court has set aside the direction given by the High Court to Customs Authorities that the respondent shall not be arrested without 10 days prior notice on the ground that such a direction is patently illegal. 13. In my view, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Padam Narain Aggarwal is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. R. De Sa, on behalf of the petitioner and concession made on behalf of the respondents deserve to be accepted. 14. In view of the above, the part of the order reproduced in paragraph seven herein above passed by learned additional Sessions Judge in Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. Therefore, the submission made by Mr. R. De Sa, on behalf of the petitioner and concession made on behalf of the respondents deserve to be accepted. 14. In view of the above, the part of the order reproduced in paragraph seven herein above passed by learned additional Sessions Judge in Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 directing the respondent no.1 herein to give notice of 48 hours in case crime is registered, so as to enable the applicant to move the Court, is set aside. 15. Considering the importance of the issue involved, I deem it appropriate to direct Registry of this Court to send copies of this order to the Principal District and Sessions Judges, North Goa and South Goa who shall circulate a copy of the same to the Additional Sessions Judges functioning in their respective jurisdiction. 16. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.