IN THE COURT OF LXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-72)
DATED THIS THE 23 th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT:
Smt. K.S.JYOTHISHREE, B.Com, L.L.B.
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.6069/2022
Petitioner
Aslam Zackria Sait,
S/o Late.Hashim Sait,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No.36/4, Martello
Boulevard, 3rd Floor,
M.G.Road, Museum
Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.Mahesh, Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State of Karnataka,
By Eastzone Women P S,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S.438
OF Cr.P.C.
This bail application is filed by the petitioner
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant an order
2
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
of anticipatory bail in his favour. 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 Ms.Aliya Khanum, in the interest of
justice.
2. On the basis of complaint from Ms.Aliya
Khanum, the respondent police may register case
against
the
petitioner
herein
for
the
offence
punishable under Section 354, 354B, 406, 415, 420
of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioner is
apprehending arrest at the hands of respondent
police. Hence, the petitioner 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 she has filed objection to this
application submitting that there is NO FIR registered
against the petitioner regarding any criminal case and
therefore, there is no question of granting anticipatory
3
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
bail to the petitioner. Hence, the learned Prosecutor
has prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Heard the argument of the counsel for
petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor on
the bail application. Perused all the relevant materials
on
record.

Now
the
points
that
arise
for
my
consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out
sufficient
ground
for
granting
anticipatory bail in his favour at this
stage as sought for?
2. What order?
5. After hearing the argument of both the parties
and on considering all the relevant materials on
record,
my
findings
on
the
above
points
are
hereunder:
Point No.1:
Point No.2:
In the affirmative
As per final order
for the following:
REA S ON S
6. Point No.1: The petition averments clearly go
to show that there is apprehension on the part of
4
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
petitioner that he will be arrested by the respondent
Police if any case is registered against him on the
complaint
of
Ms.Aliya
Khanum
alleging
that
complainant was working at petitionerТs Company
and petitioner has harassed her for sexual pleasures
at his work place and at his residence many times
and when complainant rejected the same, he has
threatened her with dire consequences. The fact that
although FIR is not registered but the documents
produced by the petitioner reveals that there is one
copy of Police Notice, dated 01.03.2022 issued by
respondent police. Now the petitioner is apprehending
arrest at the hands of respondent police.
7. The registration of criminal case is not a
condition precedent for availing benefit of anticipatory
bail by the concerned person. It is true that there is
no case registered against the petitioner by the
respondent Police. But the contention of petitioner is
that there is possibility of registering false case
5
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
against
him
by
the
respondent
Police
on
the
complaint of Ms.Aliya Khanum. As submitted by the
counsel for petitioner, it is well settled principle of law
that for availing benefit of anticipatory bail, the
registration of any criminal case is not necessary.
8.

It is no doubt that police notice issued
against the petitioner on the complaint of the alleged
complainant
Ms.Aliya
Khanum.

Moreover,
the
registration of criminal case is not a condition
precedent for availing benefit of anticipatory bail by
the concerned person. As submitted by the counsel
for petitioner, it is well settled principle of law that for
availing benefit of anticipatory bail, the registration of
any criminal case is not necessary.
9. Mere apprehension of arrest by the Police is
sufficient to invoke the provision of Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. As per the contention of
petitioner, he is apprehending registration of case
6
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
against
him
by
the
respondent
Police
on
the
complaint of Ms.Aliya Khanum for the alleged offence.
The said offence is non-bailable. Therefore, there is no
reason to deny benefit of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
10.

Further the counsel for petitioner has
produced copies of Police Notice, Medical Records,
Charge sheet, Employment Letter, Complaint and
Aadhar Card in support of his bail application.
Moreover, even for the sake of argument, if it is
accepted that there is case registered against the
petitioner for the alleged offence, the said offence is
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Moreover, even though the said offence is nonbailable, it is exclusively triable by the Magistrate.
Hence, there is absolutely no reason to deny benefit of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
11. It is well settled position that the court while
considering bail petition need not examine the
7
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
veracity of complaint allegations. In other words, only
on the basis of prima facie materials on record, the
court has to decide whether to grant or reject the bail
application. Thus on the basis of prima facie materials
on record, this court is of the considered view that at
this stage there is no strong ground so as to deny
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
12. The materials on record show that the
petitioner is permanent resident of Bengaluru within
the jurisdiction of this Court and also of the
concerned Magistrate Court. The objections raised by
the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing
stringent conditions. Hence, there is no reason to
deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
13. There is absolutely no serious ground made
out by the respondent police to reject this application.
Hence, in the circumstances, the petitioner have
made out sufficient ground for granting anticipatory
bail in his favour at this stage as prayed for.

8
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
Consequently, the point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
14. Point No.2: From the discussion made
herein above, it is clear that this petition deserves to
be allowed. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass
the following:
O RDE R
This bail application filed by the
petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioner
by the respondent police on the basis of
complaint to be lodged by Ms.Aliya
Khanum, for the offence punishable U/s.
354, 354B, 406, 415, 420 of Indian Penal
Code the concerned I.O shall release the
petitioner on bail on his executing personal
bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the like sum to his satisfaction,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall not threaten the
prosecution witnesses and tamper
with prosecution evidence in any
manner;
2. The petitioner shall not change his
present place of residence without
prior intimation to the concerned
Magistrate;
9
Crl.Misc.No.6069/2022
3. The petitioner shall co-operate with
the I.O. in the investigation of the
case.
4.

The petitioner shall appear before the
IO within 30 days from the date of
registration of the case. If the
petitioner so appear before the IO, the
IO shall, after interrogation, release
him after obtaining necessary bond as
directed supra.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer,
corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day
of June, 2022)
(K.S.Jyothishree)
LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru