BENGALURU, INDIA — In a ruling delivered on July 4, 2022, the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-60) at Bengaluru, Sri. Sadananda Nagappa Naik, rejected a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a city resident, Anjum Afshan. The court’s decision hinged on the crucial finding that no case had been formally registered against the petitioner, rendering her apprehension of arrest unsubstantiated and the petition unsustainable under the law.
The case, Crl.Misc. No. 5952/2022, was filed by the petitioner, Anjum Afshan, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking protection from arrest in anticipation of a potential case being filed for offences punishable under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Petitioner’s Grounds for Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri. Sreedhara. C.G, contended that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in a potential case. She claimed that the alleged offences, while non-bailable, were not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, which is a key consideration in bail matters.
Anjum Afshan stated that she was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal antecedents, a permanent resident of Bengaluru, and the sole bread-earner for her family. Her counsel argued that if she were arrested, her reputation and image in society would be tarnished. She offered to furnish surety and undertook to abide by all conditions imposed by the court, asserting her willingness to cooperate with the police investigation.
Crucially, the petition stated that the petitioner had “reasonably learnt” that the respondent police—the State of Karnataka by SHO V.V. Puram Police Station—was searching for her in connection with a written complaint purportedly given by one Ms. Shamin F.
Prosecution’s Objection and Core Argument
The prosecution, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently objected to the petition. Their primary and decisive contention was straightforward: no case has been registered against the petitioner.
The Public Prosecutor argued that since there was no registered First Information Report (FIR) or even a formal complaint against Anjum Afshan with the V.V. Puram Police Station, she could not claim any reasonable apprehension of arrest. Consequently, the prosecution contended that the petition itself was not sustainable under law and prayed for its rejection.
The Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
The court framed the central issue for consideration as: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail?”
The Sessions Judge acknowledged the settled legal principle that an FIR or a formal complaint is not a sine-qua-non (an essential condition) for the grant of anticipatory bail. The court cited the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc V/s State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632), which established that the apprehension of arrest is sufficient to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
However, the court emphasized that while a registered case is not always mandatory, the petitioner must disclose proper averments on a reasonable apprehension of arrest or special events to enable the court to assess the reasonableness of the apprehension.
In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner merely stated she had “reasonably learnt” about the search in connection with a written complaint. In stark contrast, the respondent police explicitly submitted to the court that “there are no complaint received against the petitioner.”
The Sessions Judge reasoned that since the police confirmed that no complaint or FIR existed against Anjum Afshan, there was no “proper averments on apprehension of arrest” or any “special events disclosed” to substantiate her fear.
The Prohibition Against Blanket Orders
Furthermore, the court invoked another principle established in the Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia judgment: the court cannot grant a blanket order of anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge concluded that allowing the present application, without a registered complaint or FIR, would amount to granting a blanket order.
Such an order, the court held, would cause “serious interference with right and duty of police in the matter of investigation.” It would essentially prevent the police from arresting the petitioner, even if she were to commit or be implicated in offences under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC after the grant of anticipatory bail.
Final Verdict
Based on these findings—primarily the lack of any registered case against the petitioner and the absence of a concrete, reasonable basis for her apprehension of arrest—the court answered the point of consideration in the ‘Negative’.
The final order pronounced by the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge was: “The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.” This decision serves as a reiteration of the requirement for a tangible and reasonable basis of apprehension before the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail can be granted by the courts.