Sanjeev Kumar Alias Sanju ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3549 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3952 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Alias Sanju Kannaujiya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Raj Kiran Chaudhary
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Shri Raj Kiran Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju Kannaujiya with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, 452, 394 I.P.C., Police Station Chaubeypur, district Varanasi, 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 applicant has approached this Court after rejecting his anticipatory bail application from the court of sessions vide order dated 24.2.2022.

The applicant has been made accused on the basis of a complaint case instituted by the complainant. In the complaint it was alleged that a case was instituted by the complainant against the accused persons for committing sexual offence, which is pending in the court and due to having enmity of that case, the accused-applicant along with his associates on 21.07.2020 at about 7.40 p.m. entered into the house of the complainant and committed maar-peet with the son of the complainant and took away two goats and cash of Rs. 800/- which was kept on the bed. The accused applicant was summoned by the trial court on 24.2.2022 for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 147, 452, 394 I.P.C. to face the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the interest of the other co-accused persons, namely, Geeta Devi, Vimla, Madhuri Devi and Aashu Devi has already been protected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.4.2022 passed in Crimnal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3074 of 2022 and the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing for the allegations are concerned. He submitted that applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and he will not tamper with the evidence in any way.

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the fact the other co-accused have granted protection by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

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 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 fact that the other co-accused of this case have granted protection by this Court and also 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. this Court finds that a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.

Let the applicant-Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju Kannaujiya involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-

1.The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their 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 his 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 him 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 misuse 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.

The anticipatory bail application stands finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 20.5.2022

Sumaira