Bengaluru, July 4, 2022 – The LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-60) at Bengaluru, Sri Sadananda Nagappa Naik, delivered a significant ruling on July 4, 2022, rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by Anjum Afshan, wife of Mr. Shailendra Laturi Singh, in a case involving potential charges under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, in its order on Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5950/2022, found that the petitioner failed to establish a credible apprehension of arrest, a prerequisite for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner, Anjum Afshan, a 35-year-old resident of Zaib Blossom Apartment in Bengaluru, approached the court seeking pre-arrest bail, anticipating the filing of a case or being searched by the V.V. Puram Police Station, Bengaluru, following a written complaint purportedly lodged by the Asra Charitable Trust. Represented by her counsel, Sri Sreedhara C.G, the petitioner contended that the complaint was “false” and based on a “brought up story” intended solely “to dictate terms” to her.

In her petition, Afshan highlighted that the alleged offenses, while non-bailable, are not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. She asserted her innocence, stating she is a responsible, law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal antecedents, hailing from a respectable family, and having a permanent residence in Bengaluru. She offered to furnish surety to ensure her presence before the court and undertook to abide by all conditions imposed, arguing that her arrest would tarnish her image and reputation in society and claiming to be the sole breadwinner of her family.

The prosecution, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, strongly objected to the petition. Their primary contention was a factual one: no case had been formally registered against the petitioner by the V.V. Puram Police Station at the time of the hearing. The prosecution argued that, in the absence of a registered First Information Report (FIR) or a formal complaint, the petition itself was not legally sustainable and that Afshan was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

Upon hearing arguments from both sides and perusing the records, the court framed the central point for consideration: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail?”

The court’s finding on this point was a resounding “Negative.”

In its detailed reasoning, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s claim that she had “reasonably learnt” the respondent police were searching for her in connection with the complaint from Asra Charitable Trust. Her counsel further emphasized that there was “no documentary evidence” against her and that the respondent police were attempting to arrest her.

However, the Learned Public Prosecutor’s submission, confirmed in the records, that “no case has been registered against the petitioner” and that there was “no apprehension of arrest,” proved decisive.

The court referenced the established principle of law that apprehension of arrest is sufficient to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and that an FIR or a formal complaint is not an absolute sine-qua-non (essential condition) for granting anticipatory bail. This legal principle allows a person to seek pre-arrest protection even if a case is merely imminent.

Crucially, the court then applied a critical interpretation of the facts before it. It noted that while the petitioner alleged a reasonable apprehension, the respondent police categorically stated that no complaint had been received against her.

The order stated: “When there are no complaint, FIR, proper averments on apprehension of arrest or special events disclosed in the application in order to enable this court to reasonableness on her behalf, the present application cannot be allowed.” The court effectively ruled that a general, unsubstantiated fear of being searched, especially when contradicted by the police’s statement that no case is registered, does not meet the legal threshold for “apprehension of arrest.”

Furthermore, the court invoked the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc V/s State of Punbaj (AIR 1980 SC 1632), which explicitly warns against granting “blanket orders” of anticipatory bail. The Judge reasoned that granting bail in the current scenario, where no offense was registered, would amount to issuing such a blanket order.

The order concluded by observing that such a blanket order would “cause serious interference with right and duty of police in the matter of investigation” and would prevent the police from arresting the petitioner even if she commits the alleged offenses (Sections 406 and 420 IPC) subsequent to the grant of anticipatory bail.

Based on these findings—the lack of a concrete complaint/FIR and the failure to establish a reasonable and imminent apprehension of arrest—the court answered the point for consideration in the ‘Negative’.

Consequently, the petition filed by Anjum Afshan under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was formally rejected. The order underscores the necessity of demonstrating a clear and reasonable threat of arrest for an anticipatory bail application to succeed, particularly when law enforcement authorities confirm that no formal proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s caution against granting relief that could impede the police’s legitimate right and duty to investigate genuine criminal allegations.