Allahabad High Court
Tanveer Saleem And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9973 of 2020
Applicant :- Tanveer Saleem And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sumit Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0461 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 211, 506 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Raebareli.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits, having been exchanged, the case is being finally heard and decided.
4. At the very outset learned counsel for the applicants prays that the he does not want to press the present application with regard to applicant no. 1 - Tanveer Saleem on the ground that he has been arrested and therefore present application has become infructuous sofar as applicant no.1 is concerned. He further submits that present application is now concerned only with applicant no. 2 namely Fariya.
5. Accordingly, present application so far as it relates to applicant no. 1- Tanveer Saleem, stands dismissed as infructuous. The following order pertains only with respect to applicant no. 2 - Fariya.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that allegations in the first information report is that the accused had prepared forged nikahnama of the complainant and on the basis of the said nikahnama the applicants moved an application for mutation of the property of husband of the complainant in their favour. On coming to know about the said fabrication, the complainant moved an application challenging the said mutation. The Tehsildar after perusal of record found that the nikahnama was false and fabricated and accordingly the land was mutated in favour of the complainant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that neither in the first information report nor in the said order, there is any role of the applicant no. 2 - Fariya, neither fabrication of records nor mutation of land in favour of applicant no. 2 has been done, it is therefore stated that applicant no. 2 has committed no offence and her name has been included as accused only in the most malafide manner.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR 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 FIR 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, 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. 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 peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
8. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and looking into the circumstances as well as annexures which have been annexed with the application for anticipatory bail as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits, this Court finds it a fit case to allow the present anticipatory bail application.
10.The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
11. This Court directs that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant no. 2 - Fariya, involved in Case Crime No. 0461 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 211, 506 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Raebareli, shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii). That the accused-applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and
(iii). That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
12.The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicant shall form part of the case diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
13.In case there is breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be cancelled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
