1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is not an accused in any crime and pleaded that he may be implicated by the respondent-Elite Action Group for Drug Law Enforcement (EAGLE), the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the material available on record.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's sister had lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members, which culminated in the registration of FIR No.1093 of 2022 at Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. It is contended that, taking undue advantage of the pendency of the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner's wife and her relatives have been allegedly threatening and coercing the petitioner, acting under their influence, the respondent-police repeatedly summoned him to the police station and subjected him to unnecessary inquiry. It is further alleged that the respondent-police collected his blood samples, which, according to the petitioner, did not reveal the presence of any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, intoxicant, or any other incriminating material. Apprehending that the respondent-police may nevertheless implicate him in a criminal case at the behest of his wife and her relatives, the petitioner seeks the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
4.2 Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the celebrated Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, particularly paragraph 37 thereof, to contend that the mere absence of registration of a First Information Report is not, by itself, an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail where the applicant demonstrates a genuine and reasonable apprehension of arrest. It is submitted that the power to grant anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard individual liberty and the Court ought to exercise such jurisdiction wherever the facts disclose a reasonable basis for apprehension of arrest. Accordingly prayed that this Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is neither an accused in Crime No.1093 of 2022 registered at Neredmet Police Station nor in any other criminal case. It is submitted that no First Information Report or criminal complaint has been registered against the petitioner by his wife, her family members, or any other person. In the absence of any criminal case or imminent threat of arrest founded upon any cognizable offence, the present application for anticipatory bail is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
7. It is an admitted and undisputed position that the petitioner is not shown as an accused in Crime No.1093 of 2022 registered at Neredmet Police Station. Equally, there is no material to indicate that any criminal case has been registered against him pursuant to any complaint lodged either by his wife or by any of her family members. Thus, as on the date of consideration of the present petition, no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner.
8. The principal contention advanced by the petitioner is that his wife is allegedly exploiting the criminal proceedings initiated by his sister in the year 2022 to exert pressure upon him through the respondent-police. However, except making bald and omnibus allegations, the petitioner has failed to place any prima facie material before this Court to substantiate the alleged acts of coercion, harassment, or misuse of police machinery. Mere assertions, unsupported by any contemporaneous record or credible material, cannot constitute the foundation for invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS.
9. The law is well settled that an order granting anticipatory bail cannot be founded upon vague, speculative, imaginary, or unfounded apprehensions. The apprehension of arrest must be real, reasonable, bona fide, and founded on objective circumstances, rather than on mere conjectures or subjective fears. While the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), held that the absence of registration of an FIR is not an absolute impediment to the grant of anticipatory bail, it simultaneously emphasized that the applicant must establish a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest and that the extraordinary remedy cannot be invoked on the basis of hypothetical or speculative allegations.
10. In the present case, this Court finds it difficult to comprehend how the criminal proceedings initiated by the petitioner's sister in the year 2022, against entirely different individuals, would, after a considerable lapse of time, furnish a reasonable basis to infer that the petitioner's wife would succeed in compelling the respondent-police to falsely implicate the petitioner in the year 2026. Such a contention, in the absence of any supporting material, remains purely conjectural and does not satisfy the test of reasonableness contemplated by law.
11. It is equally significant that no First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner and no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the investigating agency has initiated any criminal proceedings against him or has taken concrete steps indicative of an imminent arrest. Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances, where no criminal case exists and no objective material demonstrates a genuine likelihood of arrest, would amount to converting the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS into a mechanism for granting blanket protection against hypothetical future events. Such an approach has consistently been disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect personal liberty against real and imminent threats of arbitrary arrest and not against remote, speculative, or imaginary possibilities.
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable, genuine, and legally sustainable apprehension of arrest so as to warrant exercise of the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, and the same is accordingly liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
