JUDGMENT G.D. Kamat, J. - The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure once his application under that Section has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Panaji, on January 5, 1988. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the grant of the anticipatory bail sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the case disclosed against the petitioner requires to be investigated and offences involved are of serious nature. 2. The petitioner sets out that his brother-in-law is the tenant of the family of one pal who had lodged the F.I.R. on December 27, 19157 and that this family of pai, landlords, are harassing his brother-in-law, Shri Anthony Swamy, the tenant, as a result whereof a civil litigation is pending. It is alleged that the harassment is for the purposes of securing eviction of the brother-in-law of the petitioner and for that purpose even he had been denied facilities like electric current, water supply, etc. This resulted even into passing an order by the Civil Court for maintaining status quo. 3, The F.I.R discloses that in the evening of December 27, 1987, the appix petitioner along with a group of persons entered the house of the family of Pai, committed some assault, threatened the members of the said family and even committed offences such as breaking of the telephone, glasses, bottles, etc. 4. It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present complaint is false and, in reality, in the background of it is the litigation between his brother-in-law and the family of Pai and the family of Pai wants to get be eviction of the brother-in-law of the petitioner who is their tenant. It is next argued that despite the allegation in the complaint that several persons accompanied the petitioner, yet none has been identified and, in any event, the police have not so far been able to catch hold of any of the persons despite the intervention of about 10 to 11 days between the date of the incident and today. It is also urged in support of the grant of the anticipatory bail that in the absence of the alleged group of persons accompanying the petitioner, the sole attempt on the part of the prosecution is somehow to harass and detain the petitioner with a view to humble him down in face of the litigation. It is also urged in support of the grant of the anticipatory bail that in the absence of the alleged group of persons accompanying the petitioner, the sole attempt on the part of the prosecution is somehow to harass and detain the petitioner with a view to humble him down in face of the litigation. It is equally urged with vehemence that part of the investigation having been complete in all respects of the scene of offence and once the investigation papers show that the panchanama is also executed, there is, in reality, no case for detention on the petitioner for the purpose of investigation and, therefore, cumulatively, the argument is that the complaint is fare, the allegation of the petitioner having been according panted by a group of 6 to 9 persons is nothing but a figment of imagination and that the offence alleged are bailable except for the offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes this bail application, firstly, on the ground that even when the petitioner is arrested, he is entitled to apply for 'regular basis’. In any event, according to him, the accusation in this complaint is not false, more particularly, having regard to the fact that the petitioner himself admits having gone to the house of Pai family on the third floor at Gauri Niwas with a view to settle the matter between that family and his brother-in-law. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, is that as long as the complaint is prima facie not frivolous and the requires to be investigated, there is no question of the petitioner being allowed to resort to the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab1 It is true that in paragraph 31 of this Report It is observed that if the proposed accusation appears to stem from motives, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant for having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It is similarly observed that consideration of antecedents is also important and as long as there is no danger of the applicant fleeing from justice, an order in such an event be made but however it has been again observed in the same paragraph that there are several other considerations too numerous to enumerate the combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting an anticipatory bail, the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to load to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured it the trial, etc. etc. It is also laid down that the freedom of the individual must be given paramount consideration as against the egoistic purpose of the individual complainant and more so because a person who is accused of a crime is still assumed to be innocent until proved otherwise. 5. The fact remains that the petitioner himself admits that he had gone to the house of Pai family at the relevant time on the relevant date with a view to seek a settlement with the members of the family of Pai. The fact further remains that the complaint was lodged soon after. I have gone through the investigation papers. With regard to damages a panchanama has already been drawn and the matter requires to be investigated. Though it is true that there is failure on the part of the police to identify or book any of the persons with the group who is alleged to have accompanied the petitioner, yet that fact by itself ought not to come in the way of granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. The fact remains that it is the petitioner who had gone to the house of Pai family and it may be necessary that investigation must be married out and for that purpose the police wants the petitioner. At this stage it is not possible to hold having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case that the complaint is frivolous. The application is therefore, liable to be rejected. At this stage it is not possible to hold having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case that the complaint is frivolous. The application is therefore, liable to be rejected. I may however observed that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in the order that the offences disclosed against the petitioner are serious and the rejection of the anticipatory bail application by that Court or for that matter by this Court also ought not to come in the way of the Judicial Magistrate deciding the application for regular bail, if any, filed by the petitioner as and when he is arrested. The Magistrate is free to decide the application on its merits and may also take into consideration all the arguments canvassed. 6. In this view of the matter, this application is rejected. 1. AIR 1980 SC 1632