Allowed

Imtiyaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021ABAIL/1074/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Imtiyaz. The court directed his release on bail subject to personal bond, conditions, and future contingencies, citing the Sushila Aggarwal judgment and emphasizing restrictions on arbitrary police arrests.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions including appearance and non-interference.

Imtiyaz Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1074 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Imtiyaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj,Shadab Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Imtiyaz with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2020, under Section420,467,471,188,269,270 I.P.c. and section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 Cruelty to Animal Act,1960 Police Station- , Kareli DistrictPrayagraj , during pendency of trial.

¶10

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.

¶11

The implication of the applicant is under the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not arrested from spot nor any recovery has been made from him. The recovery made from co-accused persons is not supported by any independent witness. He has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant

¶12

has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 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.

¶15

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, 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

¶16

contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

(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 office;

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

(v) 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶25

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.2.2021

¶27

Atul kr. sri.

Imtiyaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Awadh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Soni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Atiq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sujeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravish Kumar Vs State of U.P.