Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15523 of 2021 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raghib Ali, Sr. Advocate Sri Saghir Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rakesh Kumar Kushwaha, with a prayer to release him on bail in the offence of First Information Report No.669 of 2021, dated 29.07.2021, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, district Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
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 applicant came to know that a case has been registered against him falsely and for the said reason he has reason to believe that he may be arrested at any time in a cognizable and non-bailable case and the facts relating to this anticipatory bail are that a report was lodged by the Police Clerk of the office of Police Upmahanirikshak/Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj and it has been mentioned therein that today he had received a letter from the higher officials regarding the cancellation of the transfer order of the applicant. It was also mentioned that when the said letter of cancellation order was got verified then it was found to be fictitious and the first information report was lodged against the applicant because he was found prospective beneficiary in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case just because of displeasure of the higher officials with him. He submitted that there is no evidence on record that the applicant has forwarded or submitted his transfer cancellation order. He submitted that when the applicant had not sent or communicated any letter regarding cancellation of his transfer order, how, he can be made responsible for the alleged fictitious letter sent to the office of Senior Superintendent of Police. A case for anticipatory bail is made out. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not specifically mention whether the applicant has submitted the said letter or it was submitted at the behest of the applicant.
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 their 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.
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 in view of the law laid down in 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.
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/officer 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 application stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 R./