Allahabad High Court
Parvej Ali vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 4 October, 2021
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11048 of 2021
Applicant :- Parvej Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari
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, Parvej Ali is apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 141 of 2021, under Sections 143,147,148,149,307,452,323,504 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station -Fatehpur Chourasi, District-Unnao.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.
Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.
In this backdrop of legal as well as factual proposition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the eve of local Pradhan Election and on account of local village party bandi, one Shakir has lodged the present FIR against 14 named accused persons in which he has attributed specific role of firing upon Moharram Ali, Munaan and Khushnoor and rest of the applicants among the mass. No overt action has been attributed to them. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the applicant has been made victim of village party bandi. It is next contended that out of these array of accused persons, interest of Mohd. Kaisar and [email protected] in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C No.7524 of 2021 vide order dated 20.07.2021 and Idreesh in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C No.7367 of 2021 vide order dated 16.07.2021 were protected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The case of the applicant stands on similar footing qua the abovesaid co-accused persons. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the applicant apprehends his arrest.
It is further submitted that the co-accused person namely, Raheesh, having the same role as has been assigned to the applicant,has been granted bail by this court vide its order dated 02-08-2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8086 of 2021. Copy of the order dated 02-08-2021 has been enclosed as Annexure No. 2 to the paper book.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
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 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. 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.
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 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, 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 him 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. 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, Parvej Ali in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 141 of 2021, under Sections 143,147,148,149,307,452,323,504 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station -Fatehpur Chourasi, District-Unnao, shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- 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 :- 4.10.2021
AKS
