JUDGMENT :

1. Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant-Javed Ahmad in Case Crime No. Nil, under Sections Nil, Police Station-Mariyahun, District Jaunpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no.2 had given Rs.17,50,000/- to the applicant as financial help for construction of his house, as they were friends and subsequently Rs.1 lakh on respective dates were paid by the applicant to him. However, on 5.1.2023, opposite party no.2 asked for repayment of the total outstanding money and abused and threatened him to repay the same till 20.1.2023 otherwise he could be implicated in false and fabricated case. The applicant informed the incident to the S.P., Jaunpur on 7.1.2023 through registered post and till date he has already paid an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- to opposite party no.2 in his bank account on respective dates, but the applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time after lodging of the F.I.R. against him. There is every likelihood that the applicant may be implicated after foisting of false case against him. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

5. It is admitted that no F.I.R. has been lodged so far in the matter.

6. It is true that filing of first information report (F.I.R.) is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C., as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, but at the same time it is also to be kept in mind, as held in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that "when a person apprehends arrest and approaches a court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension (of arrest), has to be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to a specific offence or particular offences. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. These are important for the court which is considering the application, the extent and reasonableness of the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not a necessary condition that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest."

7. In the landmark case of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC Page 1 (106), it has been emphasized that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not compel or oblige Courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc.

8. Prior to the touching of the merit of present application, a perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is desirable.

"438. Direction for grant bail to person apprehending arrest.— (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, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely—

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the