Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Harivansh Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. - (High Court of Allahabad) (20 May 2021)

Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights

MANU/UP/0646/2021

Criminal

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, in Case Crime under Sections-323, 354-B, 452, 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) 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.

Present 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, 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.

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.

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. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Tags : ARREST   BAIL   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved