1
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BENGALURU)
Dated this 4th day of July, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :Sri.Sadananda Nagappa Naik,B.A.L, L.L.B.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60
BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
PETITIONER/
ACCUSED
:
Anjum Afshan
W/o Mr. Shailendra Laturi Singh,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.TRF 1, Zaib Blossom
Apartment,
Side No.11, 4th Cross,
Keerthi Layout, Kamanahalli,
St. Thoms Town,
Bangalore Ц 560 084.
(BySri. Sreedhara. C.G, Advocate)
RESPONDENT
-Vs:
State of Karnataka by SHO
V.V. Puram Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438 OF
CR.P.C.
The petitioner has filed this petition under section 438
of Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail, if any case to be
2
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
filed for the offence punishable under Section 406 and
420 of IPC.
2. The petitioner has contended that, the complainant
filed a false complaint with a brought up story for the sole
reason to dictate terms of the accused.

The alleged
offences are non bailable in nature but not exclusively
punishable
with
death
or
life
imprisonment.

The
petitioner is innocent and being responsible citizen and
petitioner has no antecedents of involvement in any
criminal activities.

Petitioner is a law abiding citizen
hailing from a respectable family in the society and
having permanent resident at Bengaluru. The petitioner
offers to furnish surety to ensure her presence before this
court and undertakes to abide by all the conditions which
may be imposed by this court.

On these grounds, the
petitioner sought for anticipatory bail.
3. The prosecution filed objections contending that no
case
has
been
registered
against
the
petitioner.

Therefore, she is not entitled for anticipatory bail. It has
been further contended that the petition itself is not
sustainable under law and accordingly, the prosecution
prayed to reject the petition.
4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
records.

3
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
5.The only point that arises for my consideration is :
УWhether the petitioner is entitled
for anticipatory bail?Ф
6. My finding to the above point is in the ‘Negative’,
for the following:
REASONS
7.

The petitioner in her bail petition has contended
that, the petitioner reasonably learnt that the respondent
police is searching the petitioner in connection with a
written complaint given by Ms. Shamin. F, for the offence
punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. With these
contentions, prayed to grant anticipatory bail.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that there
is no documentary evidence. Respondent Police is trying
to arrest the petitioner. Petitioner is only bread earner in
her family. If she is arrested, her image and reputation in
the society will be tarnished. She is permanent resident
of Bengaluru. She is willing to assist the respondent
police in the investigation.
anticipatory bail.

Hence, prayed for grant of
4
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor argued
9.

that no case has been registered against the petitioner.
There is no apprehension of arrest. Therefore, she is not
entitled
for
anticipatory
bail.

It
has
been
further
contended that the petition itself is not sustainable under
law.

Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on
anticipatory bail.
10. It is settled principle of law that, the apprehension
of arrest is sufficient to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The
FIR or Complaint is not sine-quo-non for grant of
anticipatory bail. It is alleged in the petition that,
petitioner reasonably learnt that the respondent police is
searching the petitioner in connection with a written
complaint given by Ms. Shamin. F. The respondent police
have submitted that, there are no complaint received
against the petitioner. 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,present application
cannot be allowed.
11. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc V/s State of
Punbaj reported AIR 1980 SC 1632 that, the court cannot
grant blanket order of anticipatory bail. In this case, if the
anticipatory bail is granted the same amounts to grant of
5
Crl.Misc.No.5952/2022
blanket order. The same will cause serious interference
with
right
and
duty
of
police
in
the
matter
of
investigation. The same will prevent police from arrest of
petitioner, even if he commits under Section 406 and 420
offences, after arrest of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly,
I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’ and proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open court on this 4th day of July, 2022.)

(Sadananda Nagappa Naik)
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-60,
BENGALURU CITY.