The mere mention of a person's name in a complaint is not sufficient to reject an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

N. C. Talukdar, J. :- This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of one Purna Chandra Chatterjee. The application is with notice to the State and is opposed.

2. The petitioner is stated to be a businessman. A spate of litigations has ensued between him and one Girindra Nath Roy and Dhirendra Nath Roy who are owners of premises No. 1, Dharamtala Street. A title suit also has been started and a criminal case is also pending against the said Roys. Proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also started at the instance of the petitioner. On or about the 14th June, 1975 Girindra Nath Roy had filed a petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging offences under Sections 465, 467, 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code purported to have been committed by the petitioner in respect of an impugned document and the said petition was directed by the learned Magistrate to be treated as the first information report. Cognizance was taken and investigation has been started in the matter being case No. 379 dated 18-6-75 of the Hare Street Police Station. The matter is under investigation. The petitioner has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence in the said matter and to rule out uncertainty and anxiety, an application for anticipatory bail was moved before Sri T.K. Mutsuddi, Chief Judge City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The learned Chief Judge by his order dated the 19th June, 1975 however rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail on the purported ground that the petitioner has been named as an accused in the complaint and therefore it is his duty to surrender fore the learned Magistrate and apply for bail. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present application.

3. Mr. Bejoy Kumar Bose, Advocate (with Miss Uma Banerjee, Advocate) appearing in support of the application submitted that on merits there is not much of a case against the petitioner and the grounds on which the learned Chief Judge jettisoned the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is unwarranted and untenable. Mr. Bose further submitted that his client is a respectable businessman and there is no chance of his absconding if released on bail and that the resultant uncertainty, if he be not granted anticipatory bail, would interfere with his business activities. Mr. Ajit Kumar Roy, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the learned Chief Judge rejected the earlier prayer made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but in the facts and circumstances of the case, he left the matter to the discretion of the Court. Subject to this consideration, that if the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail, there should be sufficient terms and conditions to ensure the appearance of the petitioner in course of the enquiry or trial.

4. Having heard the learned Advocates, appearing an behalf of the respective parties and on going through the materials on the record, we ultimately hold that this is a fit and proper case where the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail should be allowed. The learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, in his order dated the 19th June, 1975 has proceeded, by and large, on the purported ground that if an accused is named in the complaint, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. We have already held in several cases and we observe again that some meaning and effect must be given to the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is a new one and has been introduced for good reasons. The animus imponentis is clear and the intention of the law-maker is to relieve a person from unnecessary apprehension or disgrace, of being detained in jail for some days before he can apply for bail in cases where he may have been implicated falsely by designing rival, particularly so, in a case wher