Heard Shri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sarita Jain, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under Sections 406,420,467,468,471,511 I.P.C., Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffar Nagar, 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.
There is allegation in the First Information Report that the informant is director of M/s Silver toan Papers Ltd., Bhopa Road, Muzaffar Nagar. In the account of his company the account of Smt. Sarita Jain,Proprietor of M/s Pratham Traders ,405 Patel Nagar, Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar,is Nil, whose proprietor is the applicant. Applicant has fabricated accounts for the purpose of extracting illegal money from the company of the informant by forging signatures of the accountant of the company. On the basis of aforesaid fabricated documents the applicant is blackmailing the informant. On 17.2.2017 he came inside his factory and tried to extract money from the directors and threatened them of dire consequences on non-payment. The informant gave application at police station but his First Information Report was not registered and hence application was made under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereon First Information Report was registered.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that firm of the applicant supplied goods to the company of the informant from time to time and Rs. 37,37,666/-was due against the informant. Applicant gave notice on 20.2.2018 to the company of the informant. Thereafter company petition has been filed by him before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi against the company of the informant praying that outstanding dues alongwith interest may be directed to be paid to the applicant by the company of the informant. The company petition was filed on 14.01.2020 and by way of counterblast the present First Information Report was lodged on 16.1.2021.Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case,when he has already resorted the remedy available under the law and resorting to lodging of the First Information Report by the informant is abuse of process of law. The Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.
Learned AGA 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, this court finds that with regard to the allegations made in the First Information Report by the informant, the company petition filed by the applicant is already pending against the informant, which has not been denied by the learned counsel for the informant. The company petition was filed by the applicant on 14.1.2020 and First Information Report has been lodged against him by the informant on 16.1.2020.The reliance on the report of the handwriting expert at the stage of anticipatory bail is unjustified. Report of the handwriting expert is very weak type of evidence and Apex court in the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhal Patel and others, State of Gujrat and others, AIR 2020 SC,818 has held that relying solely on the report of the handwriting expert ,the First Information Report should not be lodged. The opinion of the handwriting expert is rebuttable.That apart,section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the court to compare the admitted and disputed handwriting for the purpose of forming its opinion.
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 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 ofJoginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349the 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 in case of her arrest the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents 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 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. 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.
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 not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
2. The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial 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 trial 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.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.