Allahabad High Court
Sumit Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3215 of 2023
Applicant :- Sumit Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Solanki,Chandra Shekher Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Sumit Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Jagadish Kumar, with a prayer to release them on bail in Complaint Case No.3715 of 2019, under Section- 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Sidhpura, District- Kasganj.
There is allegation against the applicants that they have got a fraudulent sale deed executed.
Learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that it is a case of false implication. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature required to be adjudicated by competent civil court. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to their credits. The applicants have definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that applicant no.2, Vinod Kumar, has criminal history of one case under Sections 147, 323, 376, 452 , 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants 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/about to be registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. 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. 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. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
Regarding application Nos. 1 and 3, namely, Sumit Kumar and Jagadish Kumar:-
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of application Nos. 1 and 3, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the application Nos. 1 and 3 shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The application Nos. 1 and 3 shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The application Nos. 1 and 3 shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. The application Nos. 1 and 3 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;
4. The application Nos. 1 and 3 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 applicants.
5. In case, the application Nos. 1 and 3 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.
6. The application Nos. 1 and 3 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the application Nos. 1 and 3.
Regarding application No.2, namely, Vinod Kumar:-
In view of criminal history of one case of applicant no.2 as pointed out by learned AGA, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant no.2.
This application is, accordingly, rejected.
However, on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applying for regular bail, his bail application shall be considered as per judgement and order of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022.
For a period of 30 days, the applicant shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case, if not already arrested.
However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
Order Date :- 10.4.2023
Ruchi Agrahari
