The main legal point established is that for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant must demonstrate a genuine reason to believe that they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 341, 323, 294, 379, 354, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the requirement of 'reason to believe' for grant of anticipatory bail. It highlighted the distinction between arrest and custody, and the conditions under which anticipatory bail can be granted. The court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the petitioners failed to demonstrate a genuine reason to believe that they may be arrested.
Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners filed an application for anticipatory bail in a case pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, where they were summoned for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 379, 354, 506 read with 34 I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Petitioners did not demonstrate a genuine reason to believe that they may be arrested, as required for grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioners had shown a valid reason to believe that they may be arrested, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of 'reason to believe' for anticipatory bail, the distinction between arrest and custody, and the conditions for granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail application was rejected, and the BLAPL was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

B.K. Patel, J. - The Petitioners have filed this application u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for their release on anticipatory bail in I.C.C. Case No. 477 of 2007 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.

3. Admittedly, in the present case, after taking cognizance of commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 294, 379, 354 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C., summons have been issued against the present Petitioners for their appearance.

4. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bharat Choudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2003) 26 OCR (SC) 641 : 2003 (II) OLR (SC) 575 and of the Delhi High Court in P.V. Narasingha Rao v. State reported in 1997 Cri. L.J. 961, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there is no bar for the Court of Session or the High Court to exercise jurisdiction u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure even though summons have been issued against the Petitioners for appearance as accused persons in Court. It is submitted on behalf of the State that in Bharat Choudhary and Anr. (supra), it has simply been held that jurisdiction u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail can be exercised even when cognizance is taken or charge-sheet is filed. In the present case, which is a complaint case, cognizance of offences having been taken, summons, not warrants of arrest, for appearance have been issued. It is contended by the learned State counsel that there being no reason whatsoever for the Petitioners to believe that they may be arrested in connection with the present case, the application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is misconceived.

5. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates grant of anticipatory bail where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The provisions relevant for the purpose of resolving the legal issue raised in the present application occurring in Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure read:

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on 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 that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, xxxx

xxxx

either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail;

xx xx xx xx

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-section (1).

6. The Petitioners no where in the anticipatory bail application aver that there is reason to believe that they may be arrested. The specific averment of the Petitioners is, rather, that they apprehend to be detained in judicial custody. The averments of the Petitioners at paragraph 2 and 9 are as follows:

2. That, the present Petitioners are apprehending of detained in judicial custody pursuant to the summons for their appearance issued by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in I.C.C. No. 477 of 2007. (sic)

xxxx

9. That, the present Petitioners are only earning member of their family. If they are detained in judicial custody on their appearance. They are put into hardship and their family members face great trouble (sic).

7. Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest for non-bailable offences. In Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal, it has been pointed:

7. The facility which Section 438 of the Code gives is generally