IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.38541 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 21, 2011 Kulwant Kaur & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Prashant Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this petition for grant of anticipatory bail on the basis of apprehension that the FIR is likely to be registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City, Rajpura at the instance of Harjeet Singh complainant. No FIR has so far been registered. This petition has been filed only on the basis of apprehension that the FIR is likely to be registered. Before filing the present petition, the petitioners have approached the Court of Sessions, which had sought the report when SHO appeared and made a statement before the Court that no FIR has been registered against the petitioners. Court accordingly noticed that there is no apprehension of arrest of the applicants in the case of non-bailable offence and held that petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. When the counsel is confronted with this fact, he has placed before me the judgments of this Court as well as of various other Courts, i.e., Bharat InderSingh Chahal Vs. Criminal Misc.-M No.38541 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : State of Punjab, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 427, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632(1), Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) SCC 684, Raj Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 99 and Laxmi Narain Vs. State of Haryana, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 485, to urge that the High Court has a power to grant limited protection that petitioners should not be arrested till they are given an advance notice. I am not inclined to grant the prayer as prayed for in the petition. The petitions for anticipatory bail are not entertained merely on the basis of apprehension. FIR is yet to be registered. This petition is clearly not maintainable. Dismissed. December 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE