Allahabad High Court
Jang Bahadur And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3648 of 2022
Applicant :- Jang Bahadur And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl Chief Secy.(Home) And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Alok Tewari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2. Present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25-02-2022 passed in Sessions Case No. 284 of 2022, by the Special Judge, P.C. Act-II/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow as well as the chargesheet dated 08-02-2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 714 of 2019, under sections 166,120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018), Police Station-Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow.
3. After arguing at some length, Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the petitioners have cooperated during the course of investigation and chargesheet has already been filed in the case and no purpose would be served by putting the petitioners behind the bar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh Versus C.B.I. Through Director, reported in 2021 SCC online SC, 941. Relevant portion of the case of Aman Preet Singh(Supra) is reproduced as under :-
"Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para(v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.
If we may say, the observation hereinabove would supplement our observations made in Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr(supra) and must be read together with that judgment."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also on another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 1 SCC,676. Relevant portion of Siddharth's case(Supra) is reproduced as under :-
"We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation. We fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
We are, in fact, faced with a situation where contrary to the observations in Joginder Kumar's case how a police officer has to deal with a scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. We consider such a course misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
In the present case when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record. We may note that learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court."
6. Sri Alok Tewari, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have cooperated during the course of investigation.
7. Considering the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aman Preet Singh and Siddharth(Supra), this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to surrender and apply bail before the trial court concerned within a period of ten days from today.
8. In case such an application is moved by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the trial court concerned shall consider and decide the application of the petitioners expeditiously in accordance with law and also keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh & Siddharth(Supra).
Order Date :- 10.6.2022
AKS
