Y PANDURANGA CHARY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter has come-up before the Court on an objection taken by the office for the maintainability of the petition filed for anticipatory bail under sec. 438 Cr P C. The petitioner filed the petition saying that he is apprehending arrest and that people of the CCS Vijayawada have come several times to his residence at Ameerpet to arrest him. He claims that he could not find out actually the police station from which they have come and what is the crime number in which they have come to arrest him.

(2.) But he only learnt that they are coming from the ccs. Mr. Veerabhadra Rao relies upon the observations of the Supreme Court in gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of A P (1) AIR 1980 SC 1632. The Supreme Court in paragraph 35 observed that "the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an fir is not yet filed".

(3.) The various other observations in the judgment clearly indicate that a mere fear is no justification for seeking an order under sec 438 (1) and it should be based upon a reasonable belief and a genuine apprehension of arrest. The Court also remarked that after an FIR is issued, a person can approach the Court for anticipatory bail.