Allahabad High Court
Kanthu @ Samsher Kumar And Ors. ... vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- BAIL No. - 8898 of 2020
Applicant :- Kanthu @ Samsher Kumar And Ors. (Anticipatroy Bail)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Munni Lal,Kailash Nath
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0266 of 2020, under Sections 269, 270, 272 I.P.C. and Section 60(1)(C)(2) of Excise Act, relating to Police Station - Chinhat, District - Lucknow.
3. Counter affidavit, has been filed, and the case is being finally heard and decided .
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a false and frivolous first information report has been lodged against the applicant. According to FIR version on the basis of information, the Police raided the place and incident and recovered illicit alcohol and equipments for manufacturing the same. From the place of raid one person namely Vikas was arrested and on his interrogation, he stated that the applicants were also involved in the said illegal business. Subsequently, on the basis of said statement of the co-accused, name of applicants has cropped up in the present case. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have no role in manufacture of illicit liquor and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the applicants have no criminal history and they undertake to cooperate in the investigation and there are no chances of they fleeing from justice.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9.The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
10. This Court directs that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicants Kanthu @ Samsher, Chhottan @ Virendra Kumar Rawat and Tinku @ Hareesh Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 0266 of 2020, under Sections 269, 270, 272 I.P.C. and Section 60(1)(C)(2) of Excise Act, relating to Police Station - Chinhat, District - Lucknow, 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-applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii). That the accused-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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and
(iii). That the accused-applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
11.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.
12.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 :- 11.2.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
