Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 19271 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Babugarh, District-Hapur, during pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. No evidence regarding taking alleged money from the informant. FIR is totally false and fabricated and the same has been lodged only to harass the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out.
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 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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98.
In the event of arrest, the applicant-Sunil, be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime, till the submission of charge-sheet, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, independently, without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The application stands disposed off. Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Nitin Verma