BHAGABAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in BLAPL No. 2360 of 2004 has approached this Court under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest solely on the ground that on 27.2.2004 pursuant to search warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur the Vigilance Police searched the residential house of The Petitioner at Berhampur and official residential quarters at Phulbani simultaneously and inventory was made in respect of movables and other household articles. The Petitioner in BLAPL No. 2589 of 2004 has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code apprehending arrest solely on the ground that search warrant issued by the learned special C.J.M. (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to search warrant, a raid was conducted on 10.3.2004 by the Vigilance Officials. Admittedly, in both the cases no F.I.R. has been lodged as yet.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for The Petitioners in both the cases submits that even no F.I.R. is lodged, if The Petitioner apprehends arrest on genuine ground, prayer for anticipatory bail can be maintained. Reliance was placed by the Learned Counsel for The Petitioners in both the cases on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab reported in : AIR 1980 S.C. 1632. Shri. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, submits that prayer for anticipatory bail may De maintained even if no F.I.R. is lodged, but at the same time the Court has to see that unless there are materials to show that the accused is unnecessarily being harassed by the Investigating Agency, the Court should not grant anticipatory bail. Shri. Mohapatra also relied upon some decisions in this connection.

(3.) COMING to the facts of both the cases, admittedly, by virtue of search warrant issued from the competent court, the Vigilance Department has raided houses of both The Petitioners. There is no allegation whatsoever that The Petitioners have been harassed by the Investigating Agency. Only because a raid has been conducted it does not necessarily mean that an E.I.A. is likely to be lodged. When a raid is conducted, in my view, it is at the stage of preliminary enquiry to find out as to whether an offence has been committed or not. At this stage, there is no likelihood of being arrested unless on completion of enquiry it is found that offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been committed by the accused persons. In view of the above, I am of the view that prayer for anticipatory bail need not be entertained at this stage.