Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1271 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12165 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Rajendra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

Vide order dated 27.10.2021, the applicant was granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Gist of the issue involved in the present matter is given in the said order, which is extracted below:

"Heard learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. and perused record.

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant, Rajendra Singh is apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., Section 60, 60-A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Section 63-A of Copy Right Act and Section 103/104 of Trade Mark Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has no concern with the alleged crime. The first information report has been lodged against fourteen persons including the applicant. The applicant has been named in the first information report on the basis of the information given by the informer to the Station House Officer, P.S. Kunda that a huge quantity of adulterated liquor has been stored in a shop situated between Babuganj Highway and the railway line and the said liquor has been prepared by the applicant along with others.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not the owner of the shop and he has no concern with the alleged adulterated liquor and the applicant has been connected in the present case due to political rivalry.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that since this is a case of false implication, therefore, the anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

Learned counsel further submitted that while rejecting the anticipatory bail application, the learned court below has not assigned any cogent reasons and has not appreciated the entirety of the matter. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation and shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, if he is granted anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that in the FIR, the shop from which the recovery has been shown, the name of the licensee of that shop has not been mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that in the FIR, it has not been mentioned that alleged recovery of spurious liquor was made from the shop of the applicant.

It is further submitted that the shop of the applicant has never been raided by the Police. It is further submitted that from the same recovery, two case crimes have been lodged against the applicant. One is Case Crime No.125 of 2021 and another is the present case i.e. Case Crime No.124 of 2021.

It is further submitted that in Case Crime No.125 of 2021, an interim protection has been granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9944 of 2021, (Ashish Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) by giving parity of anticipatory bail orders in favour of co-accused persons, where also the names were included merely on the saying of the mukhbir.

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of the instructions received, has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that from the F.I.R., the offence is made out against the applicant and thus, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However, learned A.G.A. has not disputed that the present case has arisen out of the same recovery and Case Crime No.125 of 2021 has also been registered alongwith present case.

After considering the rival submissions, this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be 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. 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. 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.

As per the judgment in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat reported in MANU/SC/0949/2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, the previous criminal antecedents of the applicant whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction, the possibility of applicant to flee and where the accusation has been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him.

In the present case, after submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and facts of the case of the applicant, entitles him for getting the interim protection in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra).

The Court has considered the rival submissions and looking into the circumstances as well as annexures which have been annexed with the application for anticipatory bail, this Court finds it a fit case to issue an interim order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

This Court directs that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant, Rajendra Singh in F.I.R./Case Crime No.124 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 of I.P.C., Section 60, 60-A, 63 of U.P. Excise Act, Section 63-A of Copy Right Act and Section 103/104 of Trade Mark Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

(i) That the accused-applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;

(ii). That the accused-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; and

(iii). That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicant shall form part of the case diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

In case there is breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be cancelled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter.

List this case in first week of December 2021. "

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on the allegation levelled by the complainant, as many as 16 persons have been implicated in this case. The applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this court. The chargesheet has been filed in the matter. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial. The applicant has explained the criminal antecedents in Para no. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicant's counsel, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court and cooperated during investigation.

On due consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of the record, so also the fact that applicant has not misused the liberty granted by this Court, chargesheet has been filed, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, subject to his cooperation in the trial.

In view of the above as also keeping in view of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine 98, the interim order dated 27.10.2021 is affirmed. However, the accused-applicantRajendra Singh is directed to surrender before trial court if he is summoned to face trial for offence in question after filing of the charge sheet. The accused-applicant shall be released on bail by the trial court on the same bail bond(s) as executed by him consequent to the order passed by this Court, as extracted above, subject to his satisfaction, with the following conditions:

(i) 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 tamper with the evidence;

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness;

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

It is further made clear that in case the accused-applicant has not been arrested during investigation, then he shall be released on bail as directed above, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Order Date :- 12.1.2023

kkv/