Allahabad High Court
Vijay Krishna Verma vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 17 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. - 590 of 2021
Applicant :- Vijay Krishna Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh,Satyendra Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 183 of 2006, under Sections 177, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, relating to Police Station - Hazratganj, District - Lucknow.
3. Counter affidavit, having been filed by the State, 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 first information report role of the applicant is only with regard to introduction at the time of opening of the bank account of main defaulter in respect of whom the present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of defalcation of any kind or any role with regard to any forgery in the records. It is also submitted that the applicant had introduced the said account in the year 1992 while the first information report has been lodged in 2006 and nor after nearly 14 years of lodging of the FIR, the applicant is sought to be apprehended in the present case. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a retired person and presently is aged about 72 years.
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-applicant Vijay Krishna Verma, involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2006, under Sections 177, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, relating to Police Station - Hazratganj, 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-applicant shall make himself 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.
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 :- 17.2.2021
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
