Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra @ Situ And 2 Others vs State Of Up And Another on 27 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96326
Reserved On-17.5.2024
Delivered On-27.05.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1387 of 2024
Applicant :- Pushpendra @ Situ And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0341 of 2020 under Section- 498-A, 323, 328, 307, 342, 376 of IPC and ¾ of D.P. Act, Police Station- Sasni Gate, District-Aligarh.
3. There are allegations in the FIR that marriage of opposite party no. 2 took place with Sohit (son of applicant no.1 and grand son of opposite part no.2) on 19.11.2018 as per Hindu Marriage Rites and Rs. 16,00,000/- were spent therein. After marriage Rs. 5,00,000/- was further demanded and when it was not paid by the side of informant-opposite party no.2, she was subjected to cruelty, intoxication, attempt to murder by throttling and rape by her brother-in-law, Aman.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2. Incident is alleged to have taken place from 15.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 but FIR was lodged on 12.10.2020 without explanation of delay. Applicant no.1, earlier lodged an FIR dated 26.07.2020, under section 147, 323, 406, 504 and 506 IPC against opposite party no.2 and his family members alleging that he paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to them for doing work of his son Sohit, which they never returned and committing the alleged offences against him. By way of counter-blast to the same present implication was made by opposite party no.2 belatedly. The allegation in the FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 were not supported by any medical evidence. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 have no criminal history to their credits. Applicant no.2 is aged about 75 years. Applicant no.3 has criminal history of one case of minor nature wherein also the informant of that case has filed an affidavit in Court absolving him. They were granted anticipatory ail before submission of police report by this Court earlier.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. 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. 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.
7. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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 applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants, Pushpendra @ Situ, Machala Devi and Sagar, 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 applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. That the applicants 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;
4. The applicants 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.
5. In case, the applicants 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 applicants 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.
9. 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 applicant.
Order Date :- 27.05.2024
Abhishek
