ORDER : A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNNS], seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail in respect of unregistered Crime, pertaining to the Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban District, in connection with a complaint lodged by one Veeragandham Hemalatha with several allegations including an attempt to kill her on 08.05.2025 and hence, the petitioner is afraid of danger of arrest as Police are repeatedly summoning him. 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition. 3. Heard both side extensively. 4. Point for determination: Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 482 of BNSS, in respect of an unregistered Crime, pursuant to the complaint dated 12.05.2025? If so, on what terms? Sequence of events:- 5. A written complaint dated 12.05.2025 annexed to the Petition was submitted by the informant to the Police with the following allegations:- [i] “She is a widow, engaged in Textiles and real estate business. She had two children, (1) Vamsi Krishna -son and (2) Sai Priyanka - daughter. The informant got acquaintance with the petitioner herein in a marriage in connection with purchase of a flat. Thereafter, closeness developed between them. On sharing of information about the death of her husband, the petitioner assured that he will support her. Thereafter, convincing her children, he married the informant. When photos were about to be taken while tying Tali, on the pretext that petitioner is a Government employee, he stopped taking of photos. Informants all income out of the real estate business was saved with the petitioner, as he assured to return the money for her children future needs. From 2018 there was change in the behavior of the petitioner, he started beating the informant coming in drunken state. When she asked the petitioner to perform the marriage of her daughter, he did not evince any interest nor extended any financial support. [ii] Further, in the year 2021, the petitioner got transferred to Pulivendula and at his instance her son Vamsi Krishna was sent to Pulivendula for being with the petitioner, on the assurance that he will set up some business with Vamsi Krishna. However, on 7 th March 2021, at about 8.00 ‘O’ clock, the petitioner informed the informant that Vamsi Krishna is not doing well and asked her to come immediately. However, on 7 th March 2021, at about 8.00 ‘O’ clock, the petitioner informed the informant that Vamsi Krishna is not doing well and asked her to come immediately. She along with her son-in-law and daughter went to Pulivendula. The petitioner was staying in a hotel, when they enquired him about Vamsi Krishna, he stated that Vamsi Krishna is in Government Hospital. They found Vamsi Krishna in the mortuary of the Hospital. Then a complaint was lodged by the informant. [iii] The petitioner requested the informant not to initiate any case and sent the dead body in an ambulance. Thereafter, he was behaving well with the informant and her daughter. Later, when the informant asked to set up a business in the name of her daughter, petitioner grew wild and fisted her claiming that she can complain wherever she want, threatening that she will be killed as and how her son was killed. On 08.05.2025 when the informant approached the petitioner along with one Geetha Kumari at his office, stating them not to come at office, assured to give money and asked them to come to Guest house. When she was about to go to Guest House, he abused her as a bitch and caught hold of her neck, attempted to kill her. Hence, she approached Police to take action against the petitioner.” Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:- 6. The informant is habituated to initiate complaints to extract money from the petitioner herein, on one pretext or the other and the petitioner is afraid of danger of arrest and threat to his employment at the fag end of his service. The contents of the complaint copy made available to the petitioner by the Police is not disclosing any serious offence, but indicating the effort of informant to implicate the petitioner in attempt murder case, which is cognizable and non-bailable. Therefore, petitioner is under threat of arrest. Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor: 7. Since no crime has been registered so far, the question of granting bail or anticipatory bail does not arise. The apprehension of the petitioner is therefore baseless, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Precedents: 8. Guidance of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to grant of pre-arrest bail, commencing from the observations in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. Since no crime has been registered so far, the question of granting bail or anticipatory bail does not arise. The apprehension of the petitioner is therefore baseless, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Precedents: 8. Guidance of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to grant of pre-arrest bail, commencing from the observations in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibba Vs. State of Punjab , 1980 AIR 1632; 1980 SCR (3) 383; (1980) 2 SCC 565 are referred and discussed in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 vide Special Leave Petition in Crime No.7281, 7282 of 2017, dated 29.01.2020, and the conclusions drawn by Hon’ble Apex Court Sushila Aggarwal’s case [cited 2supra], with regard to factors to be kept in mind while dealing with the applications for grant of pre-arrest bail are as follows:- “85.1. As held in Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] , when a person apprehends arrest and approaches a court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension (of arrest), has to be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to a specific offence or particular offences. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. These are important for the court which is considering the application, the extent and reasonableness of the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not a necessary condition that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. 85.2. The court, before which an application under Section 438 is filed, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) as a measure of caution, may issue notice to the Public Prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail. 85.3. Section 438 CrPC does not compel or oblige courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. 85.3. Section 438 CrPC does not compel or oblige courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While weighing and considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified — and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The necessity to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be weighed on a case-by-case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the State or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed. 85.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by the considerations such as nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while assessing whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refusing it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether, and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court. 85.5. Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behaviour of the accused, continue after filing of the charge-sheet till end of trial. Also orders of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence. 85.6. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence. 85.6. Orders of anticipatory bail do not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail. 85.7. The observations in Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a statement made during such event (i.e. deemed custody). In such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] had observed that : (SCC p. 584, para 19) “19. … if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125 : (1961) 1 SCR 14 : 1960 Cri LJ 1504] .” 85.8. It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which granted anticipatory bail, in the first instance, for a direction under Section 439(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non- cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc. The court, in this context, is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities. 85.9. The court, in this context, is the court which grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to prevailing authorities. 85.9. The correctness of an order granting bail, can be considered by the appellate or superior court at the behest of the State or investigating agency, and set aside on the ground that the court granting it did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances. (See Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta [Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 848] , Jai Prakash Singh [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] .) This does not amount to “cancellation” in terms of Section439(2) CrPC. ..” 9. The observations of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia’s case [cited 1 supra], as well as Sushila Aggarwal ’s case [cited 2 supra], are again recently referred by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhanraj Aswani Vs. Amar S.Mulchandani and Another (2024) 10 SCC 336 2025) 1 SCC(Crl)1:2024 SCC Online SC 2453 and the principles are reiterated. Analysis and Conclusions:- 10. So far no case is registered against the petitioner pursuant to the above mentioned complaint. Earlier a case was registered in the year 2017, vide Crime No.149 of 2017 of Pattabhipuram Poilce Station, which was closed as ‘action dropped’ and said complaint was initiated at the instance of the informant herein. Likewise, Crime No.90 of 2021 dated 08.05.2021 of Pulivendula Police Station was also closed on the statement of the informant that her son died due to epileptic observations. 11. It is relevant to note the following points:- (i) There is no denial by the Police about the complaint given by the informant. Submission across the bench by the prosecution are that the Police will follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. vide Section 35 of BNSS, if necessary. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that where the offence punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. vide Section 35 of BNSS, does not apply and if a case for attempt to murder is registered, the arrest is quite possible. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that where the offence punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. vide Section 35 of BNSS, does not apply and if a case for attempt to murder is registered, the arrest is quite possible. The informant is bent upon in influencing the police to get the petitioner arrested in order to get him her terms to extract money, particularly in the context of his forthcoming retirement. (iii) There is history of previous complaints and closer of the same, at the instance of the informant and it is not the case of the Police that any such cases are still pending against the petitioner. 12. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and legal position stated above, although the case is not registered, this Court finds that there is threat of registration of case and possibility of arrest, in respect of the complaint dated 12.05.2025 submitted to Police by the informant. There is reasonable basis for the petitioner to seek the relief of pre-arrest bail. Upon considering the nature and depth of the allegations and the context in which the case is initiated and the longstanding acquaintance and relationship between the parties indicated in the complaint copy annexed, prayer of the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail, found convincing. However, imposing conditions found necessary. Point framed is answered accordingly. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest, if a crime is registered on the strength of the complaint dated 12.05.2025 of the informant namely Veeragandham Hemalatha, annexed to petition, on the condition of the petitioner executing bail bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the SHO, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur. (ii) The petitioner and his sureties shall furnish their permanent residential address details and identity particulars to the concerned police and keep the police informed about the change in address, if any, time to time. (iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation agency, by furnishing necessary and legally permissible information and he shall not interfere with the investigation process like contacting or influencing the witnesses etc.