Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010278082024 2025:GAU-AS:725 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/78/2025 ASROF ALI SON OF HAYAT ALI, R/O- VILLAGE- BHELKAR NO 1, P.O. BHELKAR BAZAR, P.S. HAJO, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (RURAL), PIN- 781102 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS N HASSAN,MS F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24.01.2025 Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS praying for grant of pre- Page No.# 2/5 arrest bail to the petitioner, who is apprehending arrest by police though no F.I.R. as yet is filed. 3. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2025 directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to call for a report from the Bharalumukh Police Station as to whether any F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioner or not. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that the he got telephonic instruction from the Officer-In-Charge of the Bharalamukh Police Station that till date, no F.I.R. has been lodged against the present petitioner, nor any G.D. Entry is made against the present petitioner. 5. In this context, Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the present petitioner was earlier arrested in connection with CR No. 11207031240189/2024, under Sections 409/465/467/468/471/474/120B of IPC, as one Vipul Kumar had transferred Rs. 5,00,000/- in his bank account on 12.04.2024. But, subsequently, the present petitioner got bail vide order dated 19.09.2024. Further he submitted that there is 41 numbers of transactions against the bank account of the present petitioner at INDUSIND Bank, Athgaon Branch, Guwahati and under the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the Branch Manager of the said Bank to know about the liens, then the Branch Manager informed him that some transactions of money from unknown source is transferred in his account, but it cannot be detected as to who transferred the amounts to his account and for which, the petitioner is under apprehension that he may be arrested for the said deposition of money from unknown source into his account as he earlier got arrested in connection with the case, as referred above. Accordingly, Mr. Sheikh submitted that the present petitioner may be Page No.# 3/5 protected for a certain period by way of anticipatory bail as there is apprehension that he may be arrested by any police not only from Assam, but from the other States of India. He further submitted that this Court has a jurisdiction over the States of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh and accordingly, he also submitted that a protection order/anticipatory bail order may be passed for certain period giving some interim protection to the present petitioner. 6. He further submitted that in case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. the State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 1632], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the F.I.R. is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and it may be extended if any person had any apprehension of arrest. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is seen that there is no mention in the petition regarding any search by the police personnel nor there is any specific explanation in the petition in regards to any imminent danger of arrest. The petitioner might have earlier arrested in connection with CR No. 11207031240189/2024, under Sections 409/465/467/468/ 471/474/120B of IPC, as referred above, but for that reason only and without any imminent danger of arrest, a blanket order cannot be passed in favour of the petitioner not to arrest him by any police from all over India only on the basis of apprehension, as stated by the present petitioner. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), as relied by the petitioner, in paragraph No. 35, as observed as under: Page No.# 4/5 “35. Section 438 (1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe' that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief', for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that 'some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested S. 438 (1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. Secondly, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for grant-in such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under S. 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of Section 438. Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under S. 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F. I. R. is not yet filed. Fourthly, anticipatory bail can be granted even after in F. I. R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. Fifthly, the provisions of S. 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. The grant of "anticipatory bail" to an accused who is under arrest involves a contradiction in terms, in so far as the offences for which he is arrested, are concerned. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under S. 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested.” 9. But, here in the instant case, it is seen that there is no apprehension of arrest nor the petitioner could bring any case of imminent danger of apprehension of arrest in the present petition to pass any order of interim protection and furthermore, a blanket order cannot be passed only on the basis Page No.# 5/5 of some sort of apprehension of the petitioner. 10. In view of above, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre- arrest bail to the present petitioner and accordingly the same stands rejected. 11. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant