Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar Kashyap And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1568 of 2021
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Kashyap And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.
Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application
This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
The summoning order is taken on record.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Rohit Kumar Kashyap and Lalit Kashyap, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2020, under Sections 147,323,452- 354-B I.P.C., Police Station- Barra, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
There is allegation in the First Information Report that son of the informant, namely, Prateek Awasthi was employed by the applicants. He has left the job of the applicants. They entered into the house informant and tried to outrage the modesty of mother of the Prateek Awasthi. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed before this court the order passed in complaint case no. 8733 of 2020 wherein son of the informant, Prateek Awasthi was summoned by the order dated 1-2-2021 under section 138 N.I. Act for facing trial. Learned for the applicants has further submitted that son of the informant had taken Rs. 2 lacs from the applicants on 29.1.2021which he did not returned hence aforesaid complaint was filed against him and by way of counter blast the present First Information Report has been lodged by the informant. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case 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 ofJoginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349the 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 peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
Hence in case of his arrest the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents 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 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. 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.
Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
3. That the 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
5. In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
6. The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Atul kr. sri.
