Reserved on 07.04.2021.
Delivered on 13.05.2021.
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7389 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramveer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.),Ram Shiromani Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Anubhav Shukla, 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, Ramveer Singh , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1300 of 2019, under Section- 304 I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Police Station-Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad, 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 allegation in the first information report is that the informant is the resident of Lucknow. He was doing work of construction of sewar working in the company, M.E.S. Infracon Private Limited, 88 RDC Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. Along with informant five persons, Vijay, Shiv Kumar, Damodar, Horil and Sanjit were also working. On 22.08.2019 at about 2 p.m. his five companions aforesaid went inside the sewar for plastering the same. When he went inside along with his companion, Ishtakar, he found them lying inside. They were taken out immediately and taken to hospital where they were declared dead. It is alleged that owners of the aforesaid company did not provided any safety implements to the workers and during working no employee / officer of Jal Nigam was present for supervision, which resulted into death of his five companions.
Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that on next date of the present first information report another first information report was lodged on 23.08.2019 by Junior Engineer of Jal Nigam, Ghaziabad against two site Incharges as Case Crime No.1302 of 2019, under Section 304 I.P.C. and earlier first information report was lodged by informant on 22.08.2019 at 2 p.m. Another application regarding the same cause of action was given by Assistant Engineer / Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam, Ghaziabad. In the post mortem report of the five deceased persons their death was found to be as a result of asphyxia caused by suffocation.
After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 7.1.2021, under Sections 304 I.PC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act without collecting any material evidence against the applicant and cognizance thereon has been taken by the Special Judge on 10.02.2021. He has been summoned by the Court.
Applicant is one of the Director of the company. Co-accused, Monu Singh, who was project incharge of the site has been granted bail by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, 17.09.2020. The offence alleged are not made out against the applicant. Earlier the applicant was granted stay of arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.21695 of 2019. He has further submitted that the implication of the applicant for offence under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act is not made out from the material collected by the Investigating Officer since there is no allegation in the first information report and in the material collected by the Investigating Officer that he was aware that such persons were members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even the offence under Section 304 I.P.C is not made out against the applicant. He has submitted that alleged incident was not permitted by him with the knowledge and intention that it will result into death of 5 persons. Applicant was one of the Director of the Company and job was entrusted to the sub-ordinates of the company and also the employees and officers of the Jal Nigam but they did not performed their part of duty which resulted into the unfortunate death of five persons. The applicant is vicariously liable for the acts of its company. In the first information report the company was not implicated as an accused. The applicant will cooperate with the trial. He is neither previous convict nor involved in other case.
Learned A.G.A. 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 grant of 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, there does not appears to any material in support of implication under Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act. Regarding the offence under Section 304 I.P.C the role of applicant can be ascertained during trial only. 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 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.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, 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. 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 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court 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 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 his passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the trial investigation is completed. In case he has no passport, he will file his affidavit before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. 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/her 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 before trial Court to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and when 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 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. before this Court.
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 his in accordance with law.
10. The applicant shall file computer generated copy of this 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 this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.05.2021 SS