JUDGMENT/ORDER V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Yugandhar T., learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this Petition by enlarging the petitioner on an Anticipatory bain in the event of his arrest by the respondent Banasawadi Police in C.C.No.54860/2018 (Cr.No.378/2018) pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Section 419, 468, 465, 471 read with Section 120B of IPC, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, in the ends of justice.' 3. Petitioner is accused No.1 in respect of Crime No.378/2018 dated 23.07.2018 of Banaswadi police. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: Police Officer by name Sri. Umamahesh, has lodged a complaint with the Banaswadi Police on 23.07.2018, which was registered in Crime No.378/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 420, 465, 471 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC against the petitioner and others. 5. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that Colombian citizens have purchased the SIM cards and Mobile Telephones from the petitioner and they have used the same for the purpose of thieving the house and other establishments in the night hours. 6. After registering the case, police have thoroughly investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The petitioner is shown as the absconding accused in the charge sheet. 7. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by the learned District and Sessions Judge by order dated 15.11.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.25891/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this court. 8. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the material collected by the investigation agency does not form any nexus between the alleged incident and the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is shown as absconding accused in respect of the incident that occurred in the year 2018. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is shown as absconding accused in respect of the incident that occurred in the year 2018. The investigation agency is unable to trace the present petitioner and the material collected by the Investigation agency prima facie establishes the nexus between the alleged crime and the petitioner, which is to be decided during the trial. Therefore, sought for the rejection of the bail. 10. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner has activated the Airtel SIM in favour of the other accused persons by taking sum of Rs.2,000/- is the allegation made against the petitioner. 12. The investigation agency is able to recover the necessary materials as to whom the Airtel Company has issued the SIM cards. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has activated the SIM cards in his mobile telephone shop. 13. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that may be mobile telephones sets have been purchased from the petitioner's shop, but he has no way involved in the incident in activating the Airtel SIM by taking the money. 14. Admittedly, the other accused persons are not the residents of India and are the Colombian citizens. 15. The police after thorough investigation have filed the absconding charge sheet against the petitioner. From 25.11.2019 onwards, the petitioner and others are not available to the Investigation agency and the matter is pending before the trial court and necessary steps have been taken by the prosecution including the coercive steps. 16. Under such circumstances, the petitioner can be safely termed as an absconding accused. It is settled principles of law that a person who approaches the court for grant of anticipatory bail, he must establish that he is a law abiding citizen. Fact remains that since the petitioner is shown as an absconding accused, he is not a law abiding citizen, which is sine qua non and therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail by resorting the special powers vested with this Court under Section 438 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, without further discussion on the merits of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.