KABC010215182023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS THE 5TH TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.7786/2023
Petitioner
Achut Shukla
s/O Aniruddh Shukla, a/a 42 Yrs.,
R/a No.17A-1, A?NSHAN, Ground
Floor,
3rd Main Road, B Block, Vinayaka
Nagar, (Opp. Varsha Residency
Apartments) Murugeshpalya,
Bengaluru-560 017.
(By Sri/Smt: P.B. Achappa, Adv.)
V/s
Respondent
1.State by East Zone Women P.S.,
2.State by Jeevan Bhima Nagar
P.S.Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of Cr.P.C.
praying to grant an order of anticipatory bail in his favour and
also to direct the respondent police to release him on bail in the
event of his arrest in any case to be registered on the complaint
of Smt.Snehalata, who is the wife of petitioner in the interest of
justice.
2. On the basis of complaint from Smt.Snehalata, who is
the wife of petitioner, the respondent police may register case
against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable
U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4, therefore, the petitioner
apprehending of his arrest by the respondent police is
constrained to file this petition and thereby he has prayed for
allowing the petition.
3. The notice of this petition is given to the learned
Prosecutor and has filed objection to this petition by submitting
that there is NO FIR and NCR registered against the petitioner
regarding any criminal case and therefore, there is no question
of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the learned
Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5. The points that arises for consideration of this Court
are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient ground for granting anticipatory
bail in his favour at this stage as sought
for?

3
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
2. What order?
6. This court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1:
In the Negative
Point No.2:
As per final order
for the following:REASONS
7. Point No.1: Although the petition averments clearly go
to show that there is apprehension on the part of petitioner that
he will be arrested by the respondent Police if any case is
registered against him on the complaint of Smt.Sneha Latha,
who is the wife of petitioner for the offences punishable
U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, but till date no
complaint has been registered against the petitioner in any
police station.
8.

Generally the registration of criminal case is not a
condition precedent for availing benefit of anticipatory bail by
the concerned accused persons, but the petitioner has to
produce sufficient materials to show that even though there is
no FIR/NCR is registered against him at this stage but there is
an apprehension that a case as alleged U/s.498A of IPC and
Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, will be registered by the respondent
police, causing apprehension of his arrest.

As per the
averments of the petition the marriage of petitioner was
solemnized with the complainant on 24.06.2019.

It is the
averments of the petition that as there was a matrimonial
dispute between petitioner and his wife, due to which the wife of
petitioner may file complaint before the
stations against petitioner.

respondent police
Further to substantiate his
4
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
contentions, the petitioner has produced marriage certificate
etc., On perusal of the petition averments it is clear that though
there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his
wife, but till date no complaint is registered by the wife of
petitioner in respondent police station against the petitioner nor
any NCR has been initiated based on the complaint of
Smt.Snehalata, wife of petitioner. Further from this fact it is also
clear that though there exist a matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and his wife,
but it is not a criteria to grant
anticipatory bail unless the petitioner satisfies that there is an
apprehension of arrest by the respondent police based on the
complaint of his wife. In the absence of any legal action against
the petitioner by the his wife at respondent police stations, the
contention of the petitioner that there is an apprehension of his
arrest on the alleged offences as mentioned in the petition by
the respondent police cannot be taken into consideration. It is
equally important to note that till this date no criminal case has
been
initiated
against
the
petitioner
by
the
his
wife-
Smt.Snehalata in the respondent police stations, nor any NCR
has been registered on the basis of the complaint of wife of
petitioner.

In the absence of any complaint by the wife of
petitioner in respondent police stations and registering of NCR
on the said complaint the Court is not satisfied that there exist
an apprehension of arrest by the respondent police cannot be
considered at this stage unless there is NCR initiated against
the petitioner.
9.At this juncture it has to be taken into consideration that
after receiving of the complaint, and before registration of FIR, it
5
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
is the duty of the police officials to register NCR and issue
notice for both the parties for conciliation regarding the
matrimonial dispute. Further it is equally important to note that
only after the conciliation talks, considering the fact and
situation of the case, the respondent police may register FIR.
The issuing of notice U/s.41(1) of Cr.P.C., calling for conciliation
of the petitioner on the complaint of his wife, may be sufficient
to hold that there is an apprehension of arrest of the petitioner.
In (2014) 8 SCC 273(Arnesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar and
another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
Уthey shall not arrest the accused unnecessarily
without proper counseling and only on satisfaction
that the persons have committed the offence the
police officials to prevent such persons further in
committing any offence or for proper investigation of
the case, or prevent the accused from causing the
evidence of the offence of to disappear or tamper with
such evidence in any manner, or to prevent such
person from making any inducement, threat or
promise to a witness, so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer,
or unless the accused person is arrested, if present in
the court whenever required cannot be ensured. It is
also clearly laid down that before arrest the first police
officer should have reason to believe on basis of
information and materials that the accused has
committed the offence.

Apart from this the police
officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is
6
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by
sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause 1 of Sec.41 Cr.P.C.,
In all cases were arrest of the persons is not required
U/s.41(1) Cr.P.C., police officer is required to issue
notice directing the accused to appear before him at a
specified time and place. The law obliges such an
accused to appear before police officers and if
mandates that if such an accused complies with terms
of notice, he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons
to be recorded, police officer is of the opinion that the
arrest is necessaryФ.
By applying the above dictum of law to the facts of the
present case it is found that in the instant case no complaint
has been registered till date nor any notice has been issued by
the respondent police regarding the conciliation U/s.498A of
IPC. In view of the same the contention of the petitioner that
there is an apprehension by the petitioner that wife of petitioner
might register false criminal case against him on the offence
alleged in the petition, and he may be arrested by police on
false allegations cannot be considered.
10.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of
bail, is discretionary power of the Court has to be exercised
consciously and with due care, so that no blanket order is
passed and every case should be considered on the basis of
facts of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have
clearly held that blanket Order of Anticipatory Bail should not be
generally passed unless specific event and facts is discloses
by the applicant in order to enable the Court to arrive at judicial
7
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
conclusion. Further the Court must take care to specify the
offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be
effective. The power should not be exercised in vacuum. In the
instant case unless a complaint is filed regarding the offence
alleged U/s.498A of IPC, the contention of the petitioner cannot
be ascertained.

The allegation alleged in the petition for which
anticipatory bail are found to be imaginary without any material
ground.
11.At this juncture I would like to refer the ratio down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1980
SUPREME COURT 1632 (Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc.,V. The
State of Punjab and Sarbajit Singh and another v., The state
of Punjab) at caption (E) is as follows:
(E) Criminal P.C.(2 of 1974) S.438 _ Anticipatory
bail – Grant of -‘Blanket order’ of anticipatory bail
should not generally be passed.
A ‘blanket order’ of anticipatory bail should not
generally be passed.

This flows from the very
language of the section which requires the applicant
to show that he has”reason to believe that he may be
arrested.

A belief can be said to be found on
reasonable grounds only of there is something
tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said
that the applicant’s apprehension that he may be
arrested is genuine. that is why, normally, a direction
should not issue under S.438(1) to the effect that the
applicant shall be released on bail “whenever
arrested for whichever offence whatsoever’ That is
8
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
what is meant by a ‘blanket order’ of anticipatory bail,
an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect
any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in
fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which,
no concrete information can possible be had. The
rationale of a direction under S.438(1) is the belief of
the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he
may be arrested for a non-bailable offence.

It is
unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his
application with the meticulousness of a pleading in a
civil case and such is not requirement of the section.
But specific events and facts must be disclosed by the
applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the
reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is
the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred
by the section.
Apart from the fact that the very language of the
stature compels this construction, there is an
important principle involved in the insistence that
facts, on the basis of which a direction under S.438(1)
is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and
general. It is only by the observance of that principle
that a possible conflict between the right of an
individual to his liberty and the right of the police to
investigate into crimes reported to them can be
avoided.
A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to
cause serious interference with both the right and the
9
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
duty of the police in the matter of investigation
because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged
to have been committed by the applicant and when,
an order of bail which comprehends allegedly
unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will
prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if
he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the
public. Such an order can then become a charter of
lawlessness
and
a
weapon
to
stifle
prompt
investigation into offences which could not possibly be
predicated when the order was passed. Therefore,
the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care
to specify the offence or offences in respect of which
alone the order will be effective. The power should
not be exercised in a vacuum.”
At this stage by applying the dictum of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to the facts of the case it is
found that in the absence of relevant materials the contention of
the petitioner that he would be arrested for the non-bailable
offence, as alleged in the petition cannot be considered.
12.Further I would also like to quote the ruling reported in
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 218(Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs.,
Ravindra Kumar and others), where in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has clearly laid down the dictum of law that while granting
anticipatory bail the court should satisfied that the applicantpetitioner has produced sufficient material to show that there is
a strong reason to believe that he may be arrested in a nonbailable offence. Mere УfearФ is not ‘belief’ for which reason it is
10
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
not enough for the applicant to show that he had some sort of
vague apprehension that some one is going to make an
accusation against him in pursuance of which he may be
arrested.
13.It is pertinent to note that it is well settled principle of
law that for availing benefit of anticipatory bail, the registration
of any criminal case is not necessary, but the petitioner has to
convince the court to the full satisfaction that there is an
apprehension of their arrest on the offences alleged in the
petition by the respondent police. In the absence of relevant
documents the contention of the petitioner that there is
apprehension of his arrest merely on the ground of matrimonial
dispute is not sufficient to believe that a non-bailable offence
would be alleged against the petitioner by the wife of petitioner,
as contended in the petition and he would be arrested by the
respondent police on the complaint of Petitioners’ wifeSmt.Snehalata cannot be considered and accepted. In view of
the same without reasonable apprehension, the court cannot
pass blanket order. From the above reasons and discussions,
the petitioner has failed to submit reasonable ground regarding
grant of anticipatory bail in his favour, hence, the question of
granting anticipatory bail in this case does not arise for
consideration at this stage, in the absence of non-registering of
any complaint and NCR against the petitioner.
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MD Asfaq Alam Vs.,
State of Jharkand, DD 31.07.2023, wherein the appellant
apprehended arrest and applied for anticipatory bail U/s.438 of
11
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Judge Gumla Jharkand, that
application was dismissed on 28.06.2022. The appellant then
approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkand seeking
anticipatory bail on 5.7.2022. It is pertinent to note that in the
said case cognizance was taken on 1.10.2022 by the Sessions
Court The High Court had protected the appellant with the
interim order directing that he may not be arrested.

When
application was heard by the High Court next on 18.01.2023
without adverting the pending anticipatory bail was rejected.
And the High Court went on to direct the appellant to surrender
before the Competent Court and seek regular bail. Therefore,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court fell into error in
adopting such a casual approach.

Hon’ble Supreme Court
issued certain guidelines to all the State Governments to
instruct the Police Officer not automatically arrest when a case
U/s.498A of IPC is registered. But to satisfy themselves about
the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down flowing
from sec.41 of Cr.P.C., In the case on hand admittedly, no
complaint is filed before the respondent police at the instance
of one Smt. Snehalata, the wife of the petitioner. A blanket
order of anticipatory bail should not be generally passed , this
flows from the very language of section, whih requires the
applicant has to show that he has reason to believe that he may
be arrested as held in Gurbaksh Singh SibbiasТ case (Supra)
15.There is no ground made out by the petitioner to allow
this petition and to grant bail in his favour, earlier to registration
of the complaint by the respondent police for the offences
punishable U/s.498A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, as
12
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
alleged in the petition. The contention of the learned Public
Prosecutor, there is absolutely no sufficient reason put forth by
the petitioner to grant anticipatory bail in his favour as sought
for in the petition, even though no case is registered against
petitioner on the complaint of his wife is accepted. Absolutely
there is no any special ground made out by the petitioner to
grant bail to him as sought for in the petition. Hence, this bail
petition does not survive for any consideration on merit.
Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.
15. Point No.2: In view of answer of this court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
It is needless to say that the concerned
police bound to follow the guidelines of HonТble
Supreme Court reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273
(Arnesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar and another)
and also in MD Asfaq Alam Vs., State of Jharkand,
DD 31.07.2023 if any complaint filed against the
petitioner.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 5th day of
September, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

13
Crl.Misc.No.7786/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(Manjunatha)
XLV ACC & SJ, Bengaluru.