Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 18656 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Nath Mehrotra Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Lal,Kundan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary in memo of anticipatory bail application.
Computer Centre is directed to correct the name of the applicant in its data base.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.52 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Raipurwa, district Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of investigation/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 first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant Sachin Vohra in pursuance of an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It was alleged that the complainant was the Manager of Dolphin Junior High School and co-accused Sagar Singh had taken four photographs of the complainant and a copy of PAN Card, a copy of Driving Licence and had taken his signature on blank papers for making his Voter Card and the co-accused Sagar Singh has also taken various papers regarding ownership and registration of the Society, letter head of the Society. After two months, the complainant received phone call from the present applicant, Manager of the bank and applicant called the complainant to the bank and asked him to deposit 20% down payment otherwise he will not sanction the letter. When the complainant asked his fellow Society Members then they declined to take the loan and complaint asked the Manager to return back the papers to him but it was alleged that those papers were returned to the applicant. It was also alleged that the applicant along with other persons after using the papers given by the complainant illegally sanctioned the loan to someone on the papers of the complainant, which were give for Voter Card.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submitted that the applicant is a retired bank official. He submitted the first information report was lodged against the applicant when the applicant had lodged the first information report against the complainant and others for the loan taken by them on forged and fabricated papers. He submitted that the first information report has been lodged with an object to injure the reputation and to create pressure upon him by having him so arrested. He submitted that no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant. He submitted that charge sheet has not been filed till date nor non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant. He submitted that the applicant undertakes to cooperate during investigation and he will not tamper with the evidence in any way. He submitted that most of the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and punishable below seven years. He submitted that first information report has been lodged with an object of injuring reputation of applicant by having him so arrested. He further submitted that in case he is being released on anticipatory bail he will not tamper with evidence and he will cooperate during investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but has not disputed the fact that the applicant was bank officials and prior first information report was lodged by the applicant the against the complainant and others regarding the loan taken on forged and fabricated documents.
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 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 right 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. The learned counsel has also place reliance on the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that prima facie, we cannot appreciate why in such a scenario is there a requirement for the petitioner being sent to custody.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, considering that accusation might have been lodged with the object of injuring the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.
Let the applicant Ram Nath Mehrotra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicant shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case he has no passport, he will file his affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. 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;
6. The applicant shall maintain law and order.
7. 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.
8. 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. 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.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. 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.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 R./