KABC010089072024
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2024
PRESENT
Smt.Mamtaz, M.A., L.L.B., P.G.D.C.A.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.Misc .No.3159/2024
Petitioner:
1. Adil Pasha,
S/o Syed Babu,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at:No.1C, 1st Cross,
Umarbagh Layout,
J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru Ц 560078.
(Accused)
(By Sri.N.Sampath Kumar – Advocate)
Respondent :
-V/SState of Karnataka,
By Banashankari police station,
Bengaluru.
(Represented
Prosecutor)
by
learned
Public
2
Crl.Misc.No.3159/2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner u/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to them in the event
of their arrest by respondent police in Crime No.71/2024 of
Banashankari Police Station for the offences punishable
u/Sec.381 of IPC, on the file of learned 2nd ACMM, Bengaluru.
2.

It is stated in the petition that the respondent
police have registered the case in Crime No.71/2024 against
the petitioner and others alleging the offences punishable
u/Sec.381 of IPC, on the basis of information given by
Akshatha Shekar. It is further stated in the petition that the
petitioner is innocent and have not committed any offences as
alleged against him. The respondent police are making hectic
efforts to arrest the petitioner in the above case. There is
strong apprehension of the arrest of the petitioner by
respondent police. The petitioner is a permanent resident of
address mentioned in the cause title. The petitioner is ready
to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by
the court for her enlargement on bail. The petitioner is ready
and willing to offer surety to the satisfaction of the court.
Hence, the petitioner has prayed to allow the petition.
3.

The learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
objection to the petition along with I.O. report by opposing the
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that
Crl.Misc.No.3159/2024
3
the offences alleged to have committed by the petitioner is
grave in nature and against to society. It is further submitted
that on 27.03.2024, he was found and he was investigated
and he was left him after the enquiry and he was not arrested
even though the I.O. has not given any notice or call to the
petitioner. The petitioner filed present application with
malafide intention to waste the time of the court. There is no
reason mentioned for enlarge him on anticipatory bail. The
petitioner may threaten the informant and other prosecution
witnesses. The petitioner may commit similar offences in
future. It is further stated in the objections that if the petitioner
are enlarged on bail, it would be difficult to secure their
presence for investigation.

Hence, the Learned Public
Prosecutor has prayed to reject the petition filed by the
petitioner.
4.

Heard
the
arguments
of
Learned
Public
Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused
the petition, objection, the written arguments and other
materials on record.
5.

Having done so, the following points will arise for
my consideration:
(1) Whether the petitioners have made
out grounds for granting anticipatory
bail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.,?
(2) What order?

Crl.Misc.No.3159/2024
4
6.

My findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No.1
..

In the Negative.

(2) Point No.2
..

As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- The petitioner has filed the present
petition praying for grant of anticipatory bail to them in Crime
No.71/2024 of Banashankari Police Station, for the offences
punishable u/Sec.381 of IPC, which is registered by the
respondent police on the basis of the information given by
one Akshatha Shekar, pending before the learned 2nd ACMM,
Bengaluru. The petitioner has produced certified copy of FIR,
complaint and other xerox copies of documents. The
petitioner is shown as accused No.1 in the FIR.
8.

It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioenr was
working under the Indian Distributor Agency and when they
checked the stock, he came to know that 46 Indian Cylinders
were stolen by the petitioner under his employment.
9.

It is pertinent to note that as per the complaint
given by complainant, the police have registered the FIR and
found the accused/petitioner and he was enquired and was
left out by the police after enquiry. Then there is no
allegations saying that he had got call or notice from the
police to appear before them. It is pertinent to note that when
5
Crl.Misc.No.3159/2024
the police found the accused/petitioner they have not arrested
the accused/petitioner, but they have followed the procedures
as laid down in Arnesh Kumar’s case. It means there is no
apprehension of arrest to the accused/petitioner. The PP has
produced the I.O. report which reveals the same and they
have not stated that the accused is necessary to arrest for
enquiry. It means there is no apprehension of arrest.
10.

When there is no apprehension of arrest, then
there is no need to file the present application. The
ingredients of the Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is very clear in stating
that there should be some apprehension of arrest. Here the
police have registered the FIR, they have mentioned the
name of the petitioner as accused and they found the
accused/petitioner and the police have enquired him but not
arrested. It means there is no apprehension of arrest. When
there is no apprehension of arrest then there is no need to
allow this application. The petitioner can appear before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate and file the application which will be
dealt is disposed by the trial judge as per in accordance with
and due process of law. Accordingly, I answer the point
No.1 in the Negative.
11.

Point No.2:- In view of my findings on point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
6
Crl.Misc.No.3159/2024
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused
u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and
then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of May,
2024).

(Mamtaz)
C/c LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.