Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5225 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh,Udai Karan Saxena(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.
Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants; Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, Manoj Sharma, Rajeev Sharma and Dr. Vinod Sharma, in Case Crime No. 153 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 34 & 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad.
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.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, Sri U.K. Saxena, informs that applicant no. 2, Rajeev Sharma, has died on account of contacting infection of novel corona virus on 18.05.2021. Therefore, this application has become infructuous qua applicant no. 2.
Regarding applicant no. 2, Rajeev Sharma, the application is dismissed.
This application is being heard regarding applicant nos. 1 and 3.
There is allegation in the FIR are that the informant entered into an agreement to sell on 19.05.2017 regarding a plot and sale deed of the same was registered on 06.07.2020. After payment of entire sale consideration to the recorded tenure holder along with Ankur Mittal. There is allegation that that applicants and other co-accused persons have obtained forged sale deeds of the plot in dispute and are trying to enter into possession over the plot and demanding Rs. 50 lakhs as extortion money.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the father of the applicants purchased the plot in dispute in 1987 and has executed registered will in favour of the applicants. He has further submitted that an Original Suit no. 813 of 2020 has been instituted by the applicants against the informant for permanent injunction and the same is pending. The police investigation is also going on.
Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicants and has submitted that alleged sale deeds in favour of the father of the applicants does not bears the details of the property. He has submitted that the sale deeds set up by the applicants is a fabricated document and the allegations in the FIR are incorrect.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. 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 are 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 applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After the lodging of F.I.R., 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 F.I.R. 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 case, the arrest of an accused should be made.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the Court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) 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.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.
The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Order Date :- 24.5.2021 Rohit