Judgment : 1. The petitioner has stated that C.B.I. has registered a case against her pursuant to the orders of the Central Government for an offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that she received US S 3 lakhs under the Immunity Scheme of the Finance Ministry under Act 41 of 1991. It is further alleged that the criminal proceedings initiated against her are actuated by malice, intended to harm her reputation due to political vendetta. 2. The respondent herein has categorically denied the registration of any case on the matter relating to the allegation referred to in para 2 of the petition and it is also stated that the respondent herein is not even enquiring on the matter relating to receipt of US S 3 lakhs by the petitioner under the Immunity Scheme of the Finance Ministry under Act 41 of 1991, so also denied the averments touching the malafides, political vindictiveness, etc. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the apprehension of arrest has no basis and the allegations are highly irrelevant. 3. Anticipatory bail provision is incorporated mainly in order to relieve a person from being disgraced by trumped up charges or from malicious humiliation. But the burden is on the person invoking the anticipatory bail provision to prove that allegations are frivolous and actuated by malafides by giving particulars. Mere allegations de-void of particulars hardly sufficient to invoke the said provision. The existing averment must be such which should come within the meaning of “reasonable apprehension”. Me re apprehension of arrest based on imaginary accusation or future possible accusations is not sufficient. Only on such accusations alleging commission of a non-bailable offence prior in point of time and be capable of being examined by Court objectively; because, it is then alone the court can examine whether the applicant has reason to believe that she may be arrested. On the averments made in this case and in view of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent, there is no basis to apprehend arrest in the absence of any case being registered against the petitioner. The other contentions do not merit consideration for want of particulars. 4. On the averments made in this case and in view of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent, there is no basis to apprehend arrest in the absence of any case being registered against the petitioner. The other contentions do not merit consideration for want of particulars. 4. In Sankaranarayanan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, 1983 M.L.J. (Crl) 13, this court has held that where the accused asserting that he may be arrested, State on the other hand contending that so far no case has been registered, the grant of anticipatory bail on the basis of vague and general allegation amounts to harming oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Therefore, I see no accusation and reasonable apprehension of being arrested in a non-bailable offence on the facts and circumstances of the present case as pleaded, for the present. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interim prayer may be continued for three more weeks to enable her to obtain anticipatory bail in the event of registration of a case at Delhi. Orders cannot be passed on surmises or conjectures or on imaginary grounds or future possible accusation. Therefore, I see no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner for continuance of the interim order. The interim order granted stands cancelled. If law permits, and if there is any reasonable apprehension based on facts that can be objectively examined by the Court, nothing prevents the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court, in such an event. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.