Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6625 of 2021 Applicant :- Rehber Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
As per Resolution dated 7.4.2021 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 applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant,Rehber , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0363 of 2019 (Case No.1009/9 of 2020, under
Sections- 498-A, 323, 354-Kha, 376, 511,
504, 506 I.P.C., and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Jansath , District- Muzaffarnagar, 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.
Applicant has approached this court after submission of charge sheet against him under sections 498-A,323,354-Kha,376,511,504,506 I.P.C., and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.The implication of the applicant is on account of matrimonial dispute of the informant with her husband Firoz Haider and other members of her matrimonial home.There is allegations of attempt to rape leveled against the applicant by the informant besides other allegations of demand of dowry and consequent harassment of victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that marriage of the informant with his brother took place in the year 2013.Thereafter on account of dispute between couple , informant left her matrimonial home and went to her parents' house.She has made wild allegations in the First Information Report against all the accused persons.Applicant is her brother-in-law(Dewar). He has been falsely implicated in this case.He has further submitted that allegation of attempt to rape leveled against him is false.The charge sheet has been filed against him without reliable evidence of any independent witnesses. All the statements recorded by the investigating officer are of interested witnesses.No effort was made by the investigating officer to record the statements of the accused persons and without conducting fair investigation the applicant has been roped falsely in this case.The allegations under section 354-B are also incorrect and leveled only to lend colour to the .Applicant is willing to cooperate with the trial. He has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
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, 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 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 her 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
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 :- 13.4.2021 Atul kr. sri.