SMT. PRABHAJOTH KAUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Sec. 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused 1 has sought for an order of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest by Chennamanakere Achukattu Police, Bangalore in connection with case registered in Crime No. 194 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) As could be seen from the averments made in the petition and also copies of the documents produced by this petitioner, who is a resident of Ludhiana in the State of Punjab, she was arrested by the Chennamanakere Achukattu Police in Ludhiana at about 2.00 p.m. on 21-2-2012 and she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana seeking a transit remand for 4 days so as to enable the police to produce her before the Court of ACMM, Bangalore City. However, on behalf of the petitioner, application for bail came to be filed before the learned Magistrate at Ludhiana and on considering the said application, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana granted transit bail to the petitioner up to 25-2-2012 with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the ACMM at Bangalore City on 25-2-2012. However, it appears the petitioner did not appear before the ACMM, Bangalore on 25-2-2012 as directed. Later the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 438 of Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore City seeking relief of anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Sec. 438 of Cr. P.C. can be invoked by any per who has a reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed non-bailable offence. In the case on hand, the petitioner had already been arrested by the respondent-Police in Ludhiana and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate who granted bail to her for a limited period. Thus from the above, it is clear that the petitioner had already been arrested in connection with the case registered by the respondent-Police. Therefore, question of invoking the provision of Sec. 438 of Cr. P.C. does not arise.