Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 16410 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar,Anil Kumar Singh,Aradhna Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Lal Vijai Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mahipal Singh, with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 436 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 313 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Khurja Dehat, District- Bulandshahar.
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 allegation in the FIR was that the complainant was married with co- accused Guruvendra, the son of present applicant and her father has spent about twenty lakhs of rupees in the marriage. Her in-laws were not happy with the dowry and they started harassing her for additional dowry and cruelty was meted out to her. There is also an allegation that brother-in- law of the complainant was ill-treating her and she was assaulted by her husband into her stomach leading to miscarriage.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person aged about 75 years and the allegation of assaulting the complainant is on her husband. There is no specific role assigned to the present applicant. He happens to be unfortunate father-in-law of the complainant. It is also submitted that below seven years is the punishment for the all other alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 IPC and the present accused has been falsely implicated in this case just to create pressure on the entire family.
Learned AGA for State as well as Shri Gaurav Singh holding brief of Shri Lal Vijai Singh, learned counsel for complainant, 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 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.
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 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.
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 and also having regard to the law laid down in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court /SHO concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
3. 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;
4. 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.
5. In case, the applicant misuses 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 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.
7. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
8. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 LBY