Allahabad High Court
Chhaya Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 19 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. - 10843 of 2020
Applicant :- Chhaya Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh,Ambrish Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Advocate for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The vakalatnama filed by Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Advocate is taken on record.
2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.332 of 2020, under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the case is being heard finally.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that according to the first information report the applicant along with her husband had floated a company in the name and style of Awadh Infraland Limited and misled the public that they owned plot No.1099 wherein some Studio apartments were to be constructed and on their misrepresentation a total of Rs.12,10,000/- was invested by the complainant in the said venture but after expiry of a long time they were neither constructing the said flat nor were they returning the money to the applicant and consequently the said F.I.R. was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant at the very out set stated that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and opposite party No.2 consequent to which a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has been transferred through RTGS in the account of opposite party No.2, a receipt of which has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant and has also given three post dated cheques for Rs.2,25,000/- payable on 31.5.2021, Rs.2,25,000/- payable on 30.6.2021 and Rs.2,60,000/- payable on 31.7.2021. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the dispute is purely civil in nature. Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant has also appeared and submitted that the matter has been settled and he also does not want to press instant criminal case.
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 them. After lodging of F.I.R. the arrest can be made by the police at will. 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 sources 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 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, 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, namely, Chhaya Singh, involved in Case Crime No.332 of 2020, under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, shall forthwith be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties 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/applicants 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. Under Part-III, Chapter- XVIII, Rule-18[3(a)] of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (amended), a copy of the bail application along with its enclosures be provided to the learned A.G.A. by learned counsel for applicants, within two days from today, without fail.
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 :- 19.2.2021/RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.)
