The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Javed Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and other has ruled that an individual may seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC when there is a reason to suspect that he would be imprisoned, even if a FIR for the alleged non-bailable offense has not yet been launched against him. However, the single-judge bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava stressed that the law does not authorize approaching the Court for anticipatory bail on purely imprecise allegations in the lack of any relevant material, and the Court will not award anticipatory bail in such a case.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party no.2 gave the applicant Rs.17,50,000/- as financial assistance for the construction of his house because they were friends, and the applicant thereafter reimbursed him Rs.1 lakh on the corresponding dates. But, on 5.1.2023, the opposing party no.2 demanded restitution of the complete overdue money and attacked and threatened him to reimburse it by 20.1.2023 or risk being implicated in a false and created case. The applicant informed the S.P. of the event, and 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 is concerned that he may be arrested by the police soon after filing the F.I.R. against him.
As stated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, the submission of a first information report (F.I.R.) is not a prerequisite for exercising the power under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. Yet at the same time it is also to be considered, as held in the previously mentioned case by the Hon’ble Supreme 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 offense or particular offenses”.
In light of the foregoing, the Court stated that the applicant’s fear of arrest is not well grounded, and the petitioner has not clarified how he has a legitimate fear of being arrested by the police. Additionally, it is worth noting that the petitioner has given no evidence in support of his plea of harboring a genuine probability that he will be apprehended in connection with the commission of a non-bailable offense, according to the Court.