Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter came up before this Division Bench on a reference made by our learned brother Parvatha Rao, J. in view of the fact that the question involved viz. , whether furnishing of crime number is a pre-requisite for entertaining an application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. has a far-reaching effect, and also becaus e. the learned brother was not able to agree with the view expressed by three learned Judges of this Court, all sitting single, virtually to the effect that furnishing of crime number is a pre-requisite for entertaining the application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. Justice Parvatha Rao was mainly of a different view and was not able to agree with the three other learned brothers in view of a decision of the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh sibbia vs. The State of Punjab and therefore referred the question for a decision of the Division Bench.

( 2 ) IN Crl. Petition (SR. No. 3918) of 1991, our learned brother Radha krishna rao, J. by order dated 12-7-91 observing: "non-furnishing of crime number must naturally result in dismissal of an application filed under Sec. 438 Cr. P. C. " dismissed the petition. Having noted the decision of Radhakrishna Rao, J. and also the observations made by the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh s case (1 supra) another learned brother of ours Jagannadha Raju, J. in Panduranga Chary vs. State of A. P. observing that the petitioner therein approached the Court "upon mere fear of arrest without giving the basis for a reasonable apprehension of arrest" upheld the objection taken by the office that the petition is not maintainable in the absence of a crime number being furnished. In another criminal petition SR. No. 1375 of 1992 our learned brother Eswara Prasad, J. upheld the office objection to the effect that unless the crime number is furnished the application is not maintainable by order dated 5-3-92.

( 3 ) THE instant petition is also one wherein the office objection is as to how the petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. is maintainable without furnishing the crime number.

( 4 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh s case concerned primarily with the scope and ambit of Section 438 Cr. P. C. Before referring to the provision covered by Section 438 Cr. P. C. it would be interesting to trace the legislative history behind incorporating the said provision into the Criminal procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 did not have a corresponding provision to the present Section 438 Cr. P. C. of 1973. In those days, there was a divergence of opinion among different High Courts as to whether the Courts have the inherent power to pass an order of bail in anticipation of arrest and the majority view was against the release. While viewing the need for extensive amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, the Law Commission of India in its 41st Report pointed out the necessity for introduction of a provision in the Code enabling the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail . A bill accordingly followed for the said introduction and the 48th Report of the Law Commission also expressed its assent for the same and accordingly the provision Section 438 was incorporated in the Code of 1973 for the first time. Section 438 Cr. P. C reads:"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested onan accusation of having committed a non-bailab e 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. "the prime condition which the applicant has to satisfy for grant of anticipatory bail is that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Interpreting the term reason to believe the Supreme Court in gurubaksh Singh s case (1 supra) observed:"the use of the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document