Allowed

Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021ABAIL/17735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in the case pending investigation for alleged offences under sections 147, 148, 384, 504, 506, 507 and 120-B IPC. The dispute was found to be civil in nature. Bail was granted subject to conditions including personal bond and sureties, with an order for expeditious investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties each of like amount till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17735 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This anticipatory Bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0667 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 384, 504, 506, 507 & 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Vrindaban, District Mathura, during pendency of investigation.

¶7

It is argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The present dispute pertains to civil in nature. From perusal of First Information Report, no case is made out under Sections 147, 148, 384, 504, 506, 507 & 120-B I.P.C. Moreover, there is no assertion regarding obscenity in video messages. In the First Information Report, allegations are levelled against Rahul Sharma regarding video messages and extortion of money. Applicant has no criminal history. Allegations levelled against the applicant is false. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Allegations levelled in the matter are not attracted. It is also submitted that if entire facts are taken into consideration, then also prosecution can only start on the basis of complaint. The applicant has no criminal history. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant with the contention that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as prima facie case is made out. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record, only on the basis of imaginary fear, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶12

In the event of arrest, applicant namely Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 a 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.

¶18

The application stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.12.2021/SKD

Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Gautam @ Chintoo Gautam 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

Arjun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishan Vs State of U.P and Another

Kaseem Pasha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Pal Vs State of U.P.

Satbeer Vs State of U.P.

Kumar Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another