Court denies interim intervention but acknowledges arrest concerns in cognizable offense. Applicant granted 72-hour notice before potential arrest.

The court rejected the interim application to intervene in the matter but acknowledged the applicant's apprehension of arrest in a cognizable offense. The trial Court's rejection was based on the lack of specific crime or complaint in the application. The court granted the applicant 72 hours notice before arrest, emphasizing that anticipatory bail would not be provided but recognizing the applicant's concerns. If the respondent decided to arrest the applicant based on specific reports, a 72-hour notice was mandated.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interim application to intervene in the matter.
2. Rejection of application by the trial Court.
3. Apprehension of arrest in a cognizable offense.
4. Request for time to approach the competent Court.
5. Grant of 72 hours notice before arrest.

Interim Application to Intervene:
The judgment begins with the court hearing arguments from the Counsel for the investors who expresses intent to file an interim application to intervene in the matter. However, the court notes that no such application is currently on record and, therefore, decides not to hear the Counsel at that moment. The court acknowledges the representation of the investors' cause by the Counsel.

Rejection of Application by Trial Court:
The court mentions reviewing the trial Court's order dated 10th November, 2021, which highlighted that the application in question was not based on any specific crime or complaint but on the apprehension of a potential new complaint against the applicant. The trial Court had refused to entertain the application, leading to its rejection.

Apprehension of Arrest in Cognizable Offense:
The judgment further delves into the applicant's serious apprehensions of being arrested in connection with a cognizable offense. The applicant, an Ex-Chairman of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, raised concerns about multiple FIRs filed based on audit reports related to the bank. The applicant's Counsel requested time to approach the competent Court in case of any potential FIR against the applicant.

Request for Time to Approach Competent Court:
The applicant's Counsel sought a provision for the applicant to have time to approach the competent Court if any FIR was registered against him. However, the court made it clear that it would not grant anticipatory bail or similar protection but acknowledged the justified apprehensions of the applicant. The court decided to ask the respondent to provide 72 hours notice before arresting the applicant in case of any cognizable offense.

Grant of 72 Hours Notice Before Arrest:
Finally, the court passed an order directing that if the respondent deemed it necessary to arrest the applicant regarding a complaint related to a cognizable offense based on specific reports, the applicant must be given a 72-hour advance notice. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the application based on the terms outlined in the order.

---