Allahabad High Court
Akbar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3089 of 2022
Applicant :- Akbar And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Ankit Kumar Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 339 of 2021 under sections 420, 447, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station Jarcha, District Gautambudh Nagar, during the pendency of the investigation.
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 brief facts of this matter are that the complainant had given an application to Sri Suresh Khanna, Finance Minister, U.P. and it was mentioned in that application that the complainant's real grandfather Basna Ram son of Taj Ram r/o village Jarang, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar had received a land when he returned to India from Pakistan as refugee. It was alleged that the said land was situated in Tehsil Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar and the grand-father of the complainant received the land of khata no. 442 and gata nos.2028-2049 and 2187 and the new number of the land recorded as khasra no. 2667, 2691, 2692, 2922 which was in the name of the grand-father of the complainant. It was alleged that Bhupendra Singh son of Hukum Singh had got executed a false will of the grand-father of the complainant and got transferred that land in his name and it was mentioned that in this regard a suit was filed in the Court of IIIrd Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad and the IIIrd Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad on 25.1.1982 had declared that will as null land void and that order was not challenged anywhere and it was alleged that despite Additional Munsif's court order, the false entries were recorded in the revenue record and the land in dispute is being sold and it was alleged that the applicants namely, Akbar, Mohd. Yaseen, Sazda Begum, Masooq, Naseem and Fatima have got entered their name in the revenue records illegally by using false papers and the police is not ready to take any action in this matter. On this application given to the Finance Minister, present FIR was registered against the present applicants.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the present applicants are bonafide purchasers. They have purchased this land after verifying it from the revenue record and they have not committed any criminal offence in regard to the sale of disputed land and they are in apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time. They have no criminal history. They apprehension of imminent arrest. If released on bail they would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail but could not controvert the aforesaid fact.
After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of F.I.R, 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 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. The learned counsel has also place reliance on the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that prima facie, we cannot appreciate why in such a scenario is there a requirement for the petitioner being sent to custody.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations antecedents of applicant, considering the gravity of the offence, considering the gravity of the offence, considering 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 in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering that accusation might have been lodged with the object of inuring the reputation of the applicant by having so arrested.
In the event of arrest of the applicants Akbar, Mohd. Yaseen, Sazda Begum, Masooq, Naseem and Fatima involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.
(i) the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022
AU
