Allahabad High Court
Pratibha vs State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2021
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11019 of 2021
Applicant :- Pratibha
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory Pratibhabail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0102 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Narakhi, District- Firozabad 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.
Submission is that there is allegation against the applicant that she tried to get training of B.T.C course in the year 2010 on the basis of fabricated credentials. The allegations made in the first information report are vague and general. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and she has no criminal history. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. 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, she is not entitled to get 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 by this Court.
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 her. After the lodging of F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at any point of time. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an F.I.R 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 right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the 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 and possibility of further surging of the pandemic, she may be entitled 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.
Taking into consideration the nature of accusation and lack of criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail is disposed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Pratibha involved in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during investigation, on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(ii) The 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
(iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 26.7.2021
rkg
