Anticipatory bail and absence of FIR: court found no merit in challenge to temporary protection order.

Anticipatory bail may be granted on a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and the absence of an FIR does not by itself invalidate that protection. The Sessions Court's order was found to be a speaking order because it reflected application of mind and recorded reasons for granting temporary protection. The department's own stand that only summons had been issued and that there was no intention to arrest weakened any claim of prejudice. The challenge was also noted to have been capable of being raised before the Sessions Court, which could modify its order under Section 439(2) CrPC. The petition challenging cancellation of anticipatory bail was rejected as without merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting anticipatory bail deserved to be cancelled on the grounds that no FIR had been registered, that the order was not a speaking order, and that the petitioner could not seek cancellation in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail can be granted where there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest, and the absence of an FIR does not by itself render such relief invalid. The order of the Sessions Court showed application of mind and disclosed reasons for granting temporary protection. The petitioning department itself stated that only summons had been issued and that there was no intention to arrest the respondent, which weakened any claim of prejudice. The order could also have been questioned before the Sessions Court itself, since the court had power to modify its order under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The challenge to the anticipatory bail order was held to be without merit and the petition was rejected.

---