citation>M.C. Tripathi#10UP500Judgment/OrderMANUM.C. Tripathi,ALLAHABAD2021-5-2416149,352843,16298,16369,17458,16599,16759 -->

MANU/UP/0646/2021

True Court CopyTM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S. 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9434 of 2021

Decided On: 20.05.2021

Appellants: Harivansh Yadav and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.C. Tripathi

ORDER

M.C. Tripathi, J.

1. As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.

3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, Hariansh Yadav and Ranjeet, in Case Crime No. 0026 of 2021, under Sections-323, 354-B, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Pawara, District- Jaunpur.

4. Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S. 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

5. There is allegation that applicants have committed marpeet with the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties and as a pressure tactics, the present first information report has been filed with false and concocted story. The applicants have been falsely implicated by the first informant in collusion with the police with ulterior motive. The applicants have no criminal history to their credits. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the present matter the chargesheet has been submitted but cognizance has not been taken by the Court below. The said fact has not been disputed by learned A.G.A.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

8. After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After the lodging of F.I.R., the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R. has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0311/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 1349, the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents and also the second surge in the cases of coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and in view of the judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4002 of 2021 (Prateek Jain v. State of U.P.) dated 10.05.2021.

10. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the competent court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

1. The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

2. The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

3. The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

4. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passports, they will file their affidavits before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

5. That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

6. The applicants shall maintain law and order.

7. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court on the dates fixed for evidence and when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

8. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

9. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

11. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

12. The applicants are warned not to get themselves implicated in any crime and should keep distance from the informant and not to misuse the liberty granted hereby. Any misuse of liberty granted by this Court would be viewed seriously against the applicants in further proceedings.

11. This anticipatory bail application is being allowed on account of special conditions and on special ground. The normal grounds, settled for the grant of anticipatory bail, have not been considered by this Court and it would be open for the applicants to approach this Court again, if so adviced, in changed circumstances.

12. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.