Crl. Misc. No. M-21421 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-21421 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2010 Sudarshan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in the event of a complaint being made by respondents No.2 to 6 against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that respondents No.2 to 6 will implicate them in a case and thus, they deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Ultimately, he submits that in case, a case is registered against the petitioners, some days notice be given to them by the investigating agency. Learned counsel has referred to certain disputes pending between the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 6 to contend that apprehension of a complaint being lodged against the petitioners is genuine and thus, concession of pre-arrest bail be granted to them. He has relied upon judgment rendered in Savitri Agarwal & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & another, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 792 to contend Crl. Misc. No. M-21421 of 2010 2 that registration of FIR is not pre-requisite sign qua non for maintaining a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The petition has been preferred merely on the basis of an apprehension in mind of the petitioners that a complaint would be lodged by respondents No.2 to 6 against them. Admittedly, no such complaint has been lodged till now. The prayer is thus for grant of blanket bail. In my considered view, no case for blanket bail is made out in the instant case. The ratio of the judgment in Savitri Agarwal's case (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the case as the petitioners have not been able to make out any plausible case except an apprehension that a complaint would be lodged against them. Such fear or apprehension cannot be a ground for seeking pre-arrest bail, in other words blanket bail, in view of law laid down in judgment reported as Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 473. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No