JUDGMENT SARANG V.KOTWAL, J. - This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No. 265 of 2019 registered at Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune, under sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 387, 120B r/w. 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Today, the learned APP is seeking an adjournment to argue the matter on merits. Therefore, I am adjourning the matter. However, considering what has transpired in this case needs to be addressed to and certain directions are necessary to be issued. 3. This application was filed in the year 2019. On 25/09/2019, this court had passed an order granting interim relief to the present applicant. The operative part of that order reads thus: "(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.265/19 registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune, till the next date, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount." Thereafter the matter was pending and the interim order was extended from time to time. In the meantime, lockdown was imposed. The functioning of the courts was affected and the interim orders were continued from time to time. On 04/11/2020, the Investigating Officer, P. I. (Crime) Vishrantwadi Police station, Pune, issued notice in the name of the applicant under section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. In that notice, it was categorically mentioned that, when the applicant had preferred anticipatory bail application before this court, the court had granted that application directing the applicant to furnish P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety. This statement, obviously, was incorrect. The application was pending and only an interim order was passed. The notice further mentions that on 04/11/2020, at about 5:30p.m. the applicant was arrested nominally and was released on bail in accordance with the order passed by the court. 4. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed on 25/11/2020 in the court of J.M.F.C., Khadki. The applicant filed an application with the following prayer before the said court on 26/11/2020. The notice further mentions that on 04/11/2020, at about 5:30p.m. the applicant was arrested nominally and was released on bail in accordance with the order passed by the court. 4. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was filed on 25/11/2020 in the court of J.M.F.C., Khadki. The applicant filed an application with the following prayer before the said court on 26/11/2020. "The Accused may kindly be taken into M.C.R. and released on bail after furnishing proper surety in the interest of justice." In that application, there was a reference to the A.B.A.No.2089 of 2019 pending before this court and it was mentioned in the application that, this court had granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and that due to persisting Covid-19 said order had been extended. The application filed before the Magistrate and the order passed thereon is tendered before this court by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is taken on record and marked 'A-1' collectively for identification. On that application, the learned Magistrate observed thus:- "Perused the application and charge-sheet alongwith the order of ad-interim protection granted by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It appears that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim Anticipatory bail in the event of arrest i.e. during investigation. Now the I.O. has filed Charge-sheet before this court as the investigation is completed. It is not submitted by I.O. that custody of accused in present crime is required. Hence in such circumstance, once the accused has appeared before the court and investigation is completed, I do not find any hurdle to release the accused on regular bail. In turn, I proceed to pass following order. Order 1) The accused Raghavendra Joshi is taken into Magistrate custody till 08/12/2020. 2) The accused shall be released on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- and one solvent surety in the like amount on following conditions. 1) He shall not tamper the evidence. 2) He shall attend the court on each and every date. 3) He shall intimate this court if any change in his address." 5. Thus, in total disregard of the pendency of this application before this court, the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant regular bail to the present applicant. This was not only an incorrect order, but was in violation of judicial discipline. The question of necessity of custodial interrogation was still pending before this court. Thus, in total disregard of the pendency of this application before this court, the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant regular bail to the present applicant. This was not only an incorrect order, but was in violation of judicial discipline. The question of necessity of custodial interrogation was still pending before this court. Learned Magistrate was aware that only ad-interim order was passed and in that case he should not have ventured in taking the applicant in custody and then releasing him on regular bail. This was in violation of the order of this court, in as much as, investigating agency had already formally arrested the applicant and had released him on bail. 6. Recently, in few other matters also, this disturbing trend is seen when such orders are passed by some Magistrates and Sessions Judges. Similar question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukmani Mahato Versus The State of Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2411/2016 vide order dated 03/08/2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation. In this context, paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of that order are important. They are reproduced as follows: "9. Coming to the case of the accused-petitioner and her role and conduct in the matter, we have perused the affidavit filed in this regard by the petitioner. The stand taken therein is that the petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and sought and was granted regular bail on legal advice. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, a statement has been made that enquiries with the local counsel have revealed that it has become a regular practioe for accused to surrender before learned trial Court and seek regular bail immediately after interim pre-arrest is granted by the higher forums. 10. When this Court or a High Court or a Sessions Judge grants interim anticipatory bail and the matter is pending before that Court, there can be no occasion for the accused to appear and and surrender before the learned trial court and seek regular bail. The predicament of the subordinate Judge in considering the prayer for regular bail and the impossibility of denial of such bail in the face of the pre-arrest bail granted by a higher forum is real. Surrender and a bail application in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of law by the concerned accused. The predicament of the subordinate Judge in considering the prayer for regular bail and the impossibility of denial of such bail in the face of the pre-arrest bail granted by a higher forum is real. Surrender and a bail application in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of law by the concerned accused. Once a regular bail is granted by a subordinate Court on the strength of the interim/pre-arest bail granted by the superior Court, even if the superior Court is to dismiss the plea of anticipatory bail upon fuller consideration matter, the regular bail granted by the subordinate Court would continue to hold the field, rendering the ultimate rejection of the pre-arrest bail by the superior Court meaningless. 11. If this is a practice that is prevailing in some of the subordinate Courts in the Country and we have had notice of several such cases, time has come to put the learned subordinate Courts in the country to notice that such a practice must be discontinued and consideration of regular bail applications upon surrender during the pendency of the application for pre-arrest bail before a superior Court must be discouraged. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be forwarded to the Director Judicial Academies in the country to be brought to the notice of all judicial officers exercising criminal jurisdiction in their respective States." 7. It is important for all the courts to strictly follow the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf. 8. The investigating officer has filed an affidavit explaining his conduct and he has tendered unconditional apology for committing the obvious mistake. He has stated that, it was a bonafide mistake and that he would not commit such mistake in future. He has emphasized on his unblemished record in the service so far. In view of his unconditional apology, at this stage, I am not taking any serious view against the investigating officer. However, he needs to be more cautious in future. 9. Coming back to the anomalous situation created by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall take corrective measures in accordance with law in this particular case. The anticipatory bail application is still pending in this court. Today, it is adjourned at the request of learned APP. 10. Stand over to 23/03/2021. 11. Interim order granted earlier to continue till then. 12. The anticipatory bail application is still pending in this court. Today, it is adjourned at the request of learned APP. 10. Stand over to 23/03/2021. 11. Interim order granted earlier to continue till then. 12. Office to send copy of this order to the learned Principal District Judge, Pune for necessary follow-up. 13. Registry is directed to circulate a copy of the aforementioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to all the Sessions Judges and Magistrate in the State.