B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) A short but interesting and important question arises for consideration in this petition. The point for decision is whether this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. can direct the release of a person against his anticipated arrest on a mere apprehension or suspicion that a person is likely to be arrested on a possible accusation of a non-bailable offence?

( 2 ) THE petitioner says that he was the Manager of Vasundhara Chit Fund and Finance, Amangal. According to him, some disputes arose between the partners of the said Chit Fund and Finance. It is alleged that other partners started harassing the petitioner demanding huge amounts from him. Civil disputes amongst the partners are stated to be pending. While the matter stood thus, the other partners of the Chit Fund company are alleged to have given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Amangal Police Station against the petitioner. Even according to that the Inspector of Police is demanding the family members of the petitioner to produce the petitioner immediately in the Police Station. It is stated that the Inspector of Police, Amangal Police Station is trying to harass him and obviously with an intention to extract some written documents from the petitioner to enable the other partners for recovery of money from the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT is specifically stated that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension that he will be arrested by the Police and illegally detained without registering a crime. The petitioner claims that the Court can direct his release in the event of his arrest, even though no crime as such is registered.

( 4 ) THERE is no material whatsoever available on record to satisfy the Court that the apprehension entertained by the petitioner is a reasonable one, except the averments made in the petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, upon the instructions form the Inspector of Police, Amangal Police Station, submits that no complaint whatsoever has been received in the Police Station against the petitioner from any of the partners of the said Chit Fund company. According to the Police, the petitioner s presence is not required in connection with the investigation of any crime.

( 6 ) IT would be appropriate to have a look at Section 438 of Cr. P. C. "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest :-- (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. "

( 7 ) AN analysis of the said Section would disclose that a person invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must have the reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

( 8 ) IN Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1980 S. C. 1632, the Apex Court 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. "

( 9 ) A Division Bench of this Court in K. Dayanand Rao and others v. State of A. P. , 1992 A. P. L. J. (Crl.) 281, held that "section 438 Cr. P. C. does not contain a condition that unless the crime number is mentioned or the FIR is filed no application thereunder would lie. Therefore reading into the Section such a condition not imposed by the Statute. Mentioning of crime number in the application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. is not a pre-requisite for its maintainability.

( 10 ) IN Thayyanbadi Meethal Kunhiraman and another v. S. I. of Police, Panoor, 1985 Crl. L. J. 1111, the Kerala High Court observed that: "in order to invoke the provision, it is not necessary that a case has already been regis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document