Rajendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 11171 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10945 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused record.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant, Rajendra Kumar is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.0198 of 2021, under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station -Dhanpatganj, District-Sultanpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

It is further submitted that as per recovery memo dated 16.08.2021, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.08.2021 under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

It is further submitted that as per the version in the F.I.R. is that on receiving the information, the raid was conducted at the house of the co-accused, Samarjeet Yadav and it was found that in his verandah, the other co-accused persons, namely Chhedi Lal, Babu Lal and Ram Tirath,were preparing wheat bags of 60 K.G. in place of 50 K.G.

It is further submitted that the co-accused, Chhedi Lal, who was arrested from the spot, in his confessional statement before the police, has stated against the applicant that they were filling the bags from 50 K.G. to 60 K.G. on the instructions of the applicant.

It is further submitted that the applicant is neither a Licensee of fair price shop nor a worker in the same.

It is further submitted that the house in which the alleged recovery has been shown, does not belong to the applicant and till date, nothing has been recovered from the house of the applicant or on his pointing out, except the confessional statement of the co-accused person that the applicant has instructed and on his instructions, they were doing the same, nothing has been found against the applicant.

It is further submitted that the nature and gravity of the accusation must be properly apprehended and the previous antecedent of the applicant is to be seen whereas the applicant has no previous criminal history.

It is further submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of village-Uttarsuma having land, so there is no apprehension of his fleeing away but police is adamant for his arrest.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and on the basis of instructions received, states that an offence is made out against the applicant as his name has been taken by the co-accused person, Chhedi Lal in his confessional statement before the police, which has been adopted by the other co-accused persons namely, Babu Lal and Ram Tirath, but, unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly, that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other material has been found against the applicant and neither the applicant was present at the spot nor any recovery was made from the house of the applicant.

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 her. 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.

As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

In the present case, after submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, rival submissions and looking into the circumstances as well as annexures which have been annexed with the application for anticipatory bail, undisputed facts that the name of the applicant has been surfaced in the statement of the co-accused persons before the police and except that no other material has been found against the applicant to make out the offence against her and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), this Court finds it a fit case to issue an interim order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant as an interim measure 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.

This Court directs that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant, Rajendra Kumar in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0198 of 2021, under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Dhanpatganj, District-Sultanpur, shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- 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 herself 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.

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.

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.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter.

List this case in the week commencing 25.10.2021.

Order Date :- 1.10.2021

AKS