Judgment 1. Heard the respective counsel. 2. The applicant herein questions the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Anticipatory Bail Application No.26 of 2013, thereby granting relief to the respondents under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant prays that the order passed in favour of the respondents herein dated 21.1.2013 be quashed and set aside. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein had filed an application before the City Civil & Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon (Borivli Division) seeking a relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the event any crime is registered against them at Dahisar Police Station or Kandivli Police Station on the basis of the complaint of Ankita Bardia, the present applicant, who happens to be the wife of accused No.1. It was the case of the prosecution that the applicant herein had made a report to the Dahisar Police Station on 25.10.2012 against the present respondents thereby levelling allegations that they are harassing her physically and mentally on account of demand of dowry and on that that basis statement of Ankita was also recorded on 12.12.2012. The present respondents had demonstrated before the Court that the fact that her statement is recorded by the police levelling allegations against them, they apprehend arrest at the hands of the police in the eventuality that the crime is registered. 4. In the course of hearing of the said application, the learned Prosecutor had vehemently opposed the grant of relief to the applicants therein i.e. the present respondents on the ground that since no offence is registered till that date, there is no occasion to grant them pre-arrest bail. 5. The learned Sessions Court had perused the Say of the prosecution which reflected that the complainant Ankita had reported the ill-treatment to Dahisar Police Station and accordingly, the Investigation Officer had called rival parties and their family members to the police station for resolving the dispute between the applicant and the complainant. The I.O. had directed the complainant to appear before the lady police officer at Santacruz for further counselling. The proposed accused were attending the Dahisar Police Station. The accused No.1 had also shown his readiness to cohabit with the complainant even by residing separately from his parents. The I.O. had directed the complainant to appear before the lady police officer at Santacruz for further counselling. The proposed accused were attending the Dahisar Police Station. The accused No.1 had also shown his readiness to cohabit with the complainant even by residing separately from his parents. The complainant at that stage had disclosed to the police that she would decide about further action against the accused only after the counselling before the Police Inspector. The complainant had not intimated the Dahisar Police Station about counselling proceeding. The accused therein had therefore apprehended that she would file a report purportedly under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and therefore they had apprehended arrest. The learned Sessions Judge had granted relief to the accused on the following terms:- “2. Applicant No.1 Hitesh Bhagwatilal Bardiya, applicant No.2. Bhagwatilal Kesharimal Bardiya, applicant No.3. Tara Bhagwatilal Bardiya, applicant No.4, Vaishali Bhagwatilal Bardiya, in the event of their arrest by Dahisar police Station, in connection of offence under Section 498A if registered at the instance of complainant Ankita Hitesh Bardiya, be released on their PR bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount. 3. They shall co-operate with Investigating Officer in case any crime is registered against them on the complaint of Ankita Hitesh Bardiya.” Hence, the learned counsel for the applicant seeks cancellation of the order passed by the Sessions Court as it was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel further submits that the complainant had expressed her grievance that the investigation is not being carried out in a proper manner and charge-sheet was filed on 12.8.2013. The learned Magistrate had considered the grievances of the complainant and by an order dated 10.6.2014 had allowed the application and directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the Sessions Court has granted a blanket relief in favour of the accused which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has place reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & Anr. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has place reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & Anr. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 690 and submits that the courts cannot pass an order that on surrendering of the accused before the Magistrate he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may deem fit. It is in clear violation of the language employed in the of the statutory provisions and in flagrant violation of the dictum laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 and the principles culled out in Savitri Agarwal, (2009) 8 SCC 325 . It is clear that the Court cannot issue a blanket order restraining arrest and it can only issue an interim order and the interim order must also conform to the requirement of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed. According to him, the impugned order is in the nature of a blanket order and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is true that since the prosecution had brought it to the notice of the Sessions Court that no order granting anticipatory bail should not be granted in view of the fact that no offence is registered. The learned Sessions Judge had perused the papers and the Say of the prosecution. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge could have granted relief in the nature of protection for 72 hours after registration of the offence. However, the Sessions Court had taken into consideration that the accused had shown apprehension of arrest. This is further fortified by the fact that the order was passed on 21.1.2013 and the offence against the accused was registered on 22.1.2013. It is therefore, amply clear that the accused had demonstrated apprehension of arrest to the subjective satisfaction of the Sessions Court which was duly considered. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for grant of relief under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014), the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for grant of relief under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that “arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. …Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.” In the present case, the orders granting relief were passed on 21.1.2013, the offence was registered on 22.1.2013. In the eventuality that the accused were not protected, they would have to face the wrath of the police in the form of custody. The Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the guidelines to the police officers and the Courts and has made it mandatory to follow the mandate of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of this, although this Court is of the opinion that the Sessions Court ought to have granted temporary protection to the accused it does not call for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 21.1.2013. The Application stands dismissed.