Shishupal Singh vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1888 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3318 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Shishupal Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.109 of 2021, under Section 304 I.P.C., Police Station Hariparwat, District Agra, during pendency of investigation/trial.

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 first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C against the present applicant and other family members about the death of the deceased Bharti who was married with Kapoor Chand on 16.04.2019. It was alleged that the complainant had given sufficient dowry in the marriage but the in-laws of the deceased was not happy.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is brother-in-law of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this matter just to injure the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested. He further submitted that deceased was hospitalized at Vardan Nursing and Maternity Home by her parents for her delivery and when she was admitted to the hospital her medical condition was serious due to pregnancy related complications and the husband of the deceased and his family shifted the deceased to another hospital to save the life of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that cause of death is disclosed by the doctor as excessive bleeding due to pregnancy complications and as per postmortem report she has died due to sudden cardiac arrest, when deceased was admitted to the hospital she was found to be in gasping situation. He further submitted that present applicant has no criminal history and Smt. Guddi who was also assigned the same role as pert the First Information Report has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C No. 19910 of 2021, photocopy whereof has been annexed on page no. 42 onward of the paper book. He claims parity.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the factum of parity with the co-accused.

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 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 and antecedents of applicants, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble 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. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

Considering the rival submissions, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the allegations leveled in the first information report and considering that the applicant might has been falsely nominated in this matter at the behest of the complainant side, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.

In the event of arrest of the applicant 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 furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- 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:-

1.The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

2. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

3. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

4. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case he has no passport, he will file their affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

5. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

6. The applicant shall maintain law and order.

7. 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.

8. 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

9. 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.

Order Date :- 4.5.2022

PS