Allahabad High Court
Amit @ Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 7 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. - 2264 of 2022
Applicant :- Amit @ Amit Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M.C. Singh,Dushyant Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Mishra
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Amit @ Amit Kumar, with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 352, 354, 307, 504 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station- Agouta, District- Bulandshahar.
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.
As per the FIR version the allegation made against the present accused is that the applicant along with other members of his family has tried to strangulate the complainant. The present accused is husband of the complainant (wife).
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute going on between the complainant and present accused and just to create pressure upon the present accused, this false FIR has been lodged against the present accused and other members of his family. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this matter co-accused Sanjeev @ Sanjeev Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail, vide order dated 24.03.2022, by another Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, a copy of the said order has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant during hearing is being taken on record of this case. The learned counsel for the applicant submits further that the allegation made against the present accused is that he tied a rope round the neck of the complainant, then, what were the intervening circumstances that restrained him not to kill the complainant. It goes to show that the allegation made against the applicant is false and fabricated just to injure the reputation of applicant and to humiliate him in society.
Learned AGA as well as Shri Alok Mishra appearing of behalf of the complainant 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, he is not entitled to 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.
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 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. This Court also finds that the accusations against the applicant have been levelled just to tarnish the image of the present accused. 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.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and considering that co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Hon'ble High Court, the applicant is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court /SHO concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.
5. In case, the applicant misuses 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 applicant 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 him in accordance with law.
The anticipatory bail application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
LBY
