Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9901 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Ahamad And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saima Saher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
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 learned counsel for the applicants 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, Mohammad Ahamad and Waseem, in Case Crime No. 058 of 2021 under sections 147, 149, 452, 324, 326, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., police sttion Nakhasa, District Sambhal.
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.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on account of typing mistake Section 326 I.P.C. has been left out in the prayer clause and she is unable to correct the prayer when in paragraph-8 of the affidavit filed in support of this anticipatory bail application, she has mentioned that the Investigating Officer has added Section 326 I.P.C.
In view of the above, counsel for the applicant will make necessary correction in the prayer clause after the normal functioning of the Court restored. In the present case, Section 326 I.P.C. be considered as one of the section in which anticipatory bail shall be considered.
There is allegation in the F.I.R. that the applicants entered into violence with the side of the informant and caused injuries by Saria, lathi, danda and tabal,etc.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicants have no criminal history to their credits. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time. The police investigation is still going on.
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 of Sushila 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 :- 28.5.2021 Shiraz