Allahabad High Court
Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav And ... vs State Of U.P. on 7 January, 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. - 69 of 2021
Applicant :- Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kesh,Saroj Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramanuj Srivastava and Sri Adesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants states that the name applicant no.5, Yogendra Kumar Yadav, has wrongly been typed and he may be permitted to delete his name within the course of day.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the name of applicant no.5, Yogendra Kumar Yadav, from the array of parties of Anticipatory Bail application within the course of day.
Anticipatory bail application with regard to applicant no.5, Yogendra Kumar Yadav, is dismissed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application
This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav, Shiv Nath Singh Yadav, Smt. Kishmatti Devi, and Vinod Kumar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.915 of 2019 , under Sections-354, 376, 506, 313, 504, 420 I.P.C, Police Station- Colonelganj, District-Prayagraj, 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.
The allegation against the applicants in the first information is that applicant no.4, Vinod Kumar Yadav, entered into friend-ship with the informant in the year 2013 while they were students. Thereafter their relation-ship continued. It is alleged that he entered into physical relation-ship on the promise of marriage. Now he has refused to marry the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant no.1, Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav, applicant no.2 Shiv Nath Singh Yadav and applicant no.3 Smt. Kishmatti Devi are the brother, father and mother of the main accused applicant no.4, Vinod Kumar Yadav. They have been falsely implicated on account of alleged misdeed of applicant no.4. They have no criminal history to their credit and charge-sheet has already been submitted against them. Earlier they were granted anticipatory bail till submission of charge-sheet vide Anticipatory Bail Application No.1104 of 2020. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants 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/about to be registered against the applicants. 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. 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 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant nos.1,2 & 3, they are directed to 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicants, Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav, Shiv Nath Singh Yadav and Smt. Kishmatti Devi shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant nos.1, 2 & 3, 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 the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned 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 they 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 applicants.
5. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the 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 them 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.
With regard to applicant no.4, Vinod Kumar Yadav, the offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicant no.4, Vinod Kumar Yadav, appears and surrenders before the court below within 90 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against applicant no.4.
However, in case, the applicant no.4 does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant no.4 will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of with regard to applicant no.4.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021
SS
