Allowed

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021ABAIL/1125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants accused of offences under excise laws and IPC during a lockdown. The court imposed conditions including bonds with sureties, surrender of passports, and presence at trial stages, following the Sushila Aggarwal guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding passport surrender and court attendance.

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 28.01.2021 Delivered On:- 05.02.2021

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1125 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Sushma Jindal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, namely, Sushma Jindal, Saurabh Goel and Deepak Sharma , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 862 of 2020, under Sections- 269, 270, 271, 188, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 60, 64, 72 of U.P. Excise Act Section 51 of Disaster Management Act 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act 1897, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶8

The allegation in the FIR is that the police on the informant of the informer intercepted a vehicle and the driver and co-accused, Deepak Kumar, informed that there are 48 quarters of English liquor which he has purchased from co-accused, Harsaran Gupta and applicant no. 1, Smt. Shushma Jindal, who are the owner of godown. The Manager of the godown is applicant no. 3, Deepak Sharma. When the police went to the godown, 8 persons with liquor and Rs. 3,03,510/- were found. The alleged incident took place during the lockdown on account of spread of novel

¶9

¶10

corona virus.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no. 1 is valid license holder of the whole sale beer and is aged about 69 years. The applicant no. 2 is relative of applicant no. 1 and has no concern with the business of applicant no. 1. The applicant no. 3 is Manager of godown and he was in his house when the alleged offence was committed by the other co-accused person by selling liquor. He has submitted that when other accused persons who were found selling liquor were arrested, they have named the applicants. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal antecedents. The alleged offence are punishable under 7 years of imprisonment. Initially, the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2658 of 2020 but now charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer and hence in view of the judgment of this Court dated 08.12.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8285 of 2020 (Adil Vs. State of U.P.), this application is maintainable.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶13

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. 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

¶14

¶15

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 o f 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 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.

¶16

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶17

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants 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:-

¶18

The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶19

¶20

The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶21

That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.

¶23

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 .

¶24

The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of

¶27

¶28

such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶29

Order date:- 05.02.2021 Rohit

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Smt. Rita Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehrauddin and 9 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sant Ram @ Santi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.