1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 260 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Gosaiganj, District - Lucknow.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits, having been exchanged, the case is being finally heard and decided. This Court by means of detailed order dated 02.09.2020, has granted interim protection to the applicant.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is a retried Government Servant aged about 80 years. The FIR has been lodged after a lapse of 9 years of the incident without any plausible explanation. In the FIR, it is alleged that the maternal grandmother of the first informant namely late Smt. Chandrawati was owner of some land situated at Village Muazzamnagar, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. In the year, 1986, she died. After the death of Smt. Chandrawati, the first informant could not mutated his name in the property in question. The co-accused Pradeep Kumar Verma prepared a forged will deed of late Chandrawati and succeed to get entered his name in the revnue records. The first informant has filed a suit under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act against which the co-accused Pradeep Kumar Verma has filed an application. An order dated 19.09.2006 was passed in favour of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Verma. Against the said order, the first informant has filed a revision bearing No.309 of 2006-07 in which an interim order was passed in faovur of the first informant. The co-accused Pradeep Kumar Verma sold the said land partly to the applicant and other co-accused Yogendra Narayan Tiwari in the year 2008.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser. At the time of purchasing the land, the applicant has no knowledge about the abovesaid litigation. There is no evidence against the applicant.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has again submitted that the co-accused Pradeep Kumar Verma has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.06.2020 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The co-accused Yogendra Narayan Tiwari has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 13.08.2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3503 of 2020. In these background, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is a law abiding citizen. The accused applicant has assured that he shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall not indulged into any activity affecting the course of justice.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. 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.
9. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant may 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.
10. 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 as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits, this Court finds it a fit case to allow the present anticipatory bail application.
11.The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
12. This Court directs that in the event of arrest, the accused-applicant Babu Ram, involved in FIR/Case Crime No. 260 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Gosaiganj, District - Lucknow, shall be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a personal bond 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.
11.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.
12.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.
Order Date :- 17.2.2021 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)