HASEEB MUDASIR, MR. G. CHAND BASHA, MRS. SAYEEDA BEGUM AND MR. NAJEEB HASSAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first petitioner is said to be married to one Zainab Jahan. It is claimed that there is discord between the petitioner and his wife and they are living separately since three months. It is further stated that there has been continuous threat from the petitioner's wife and her family of implicating the petitioner and his family members who are petitioners herein in a criminal case. It is with great difficulty that the petitioner has been attending to his day to day affairs in the constant apprehension that he and his family members would be arrested on the basis of the false allegations made by his wife. The petitioner is said to be employed in a prestigious multinational company and if any case is registered against him and if he is taken into custody he faces the prospect of immediate termination from employment by his employer. In this state of affairs, the petitioner had approached the Court below seeking anticipatory bail. The Court below has opined that the petitioner only suffers from a fear that he may be arrested and there should be reasonable apprehension and it is different from merely claiming a fear that is harboured by the petitioner. No blanket order of anticipatory bail could be granted to be used as a shield to protect him from any form of complaint and from any person, notwithstanding the attention of the Court below having been drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1980 SC 1632 which has been extensively relied upon and followed by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2011 SC 312 .

(2.) GIVEN the circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court, insofar as exercise of power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the circumstances in which it could be exercised is referred to by the Court below and the negative aspects declared by the Supreme Court having been highlighted, the Court below has proceeded to reject the bail petition. However, given the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, where not only the petitioner but his parents also claim to have suffered at the hands of the wife of the petitioner, it cannot be said to be mere fear and there is a reasonable apprehension, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court which reads as follows: - Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested for a non -bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non -bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to 418 the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely.