Allowed

Geeta Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021ABAIL/2311/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Siddharth, J. of Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application. The court rejected the state's argument against bail and released applicants on anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions, citing Sushila Aggarwal judgment. No opinion was expressed on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicants discharged from arrest on release on personal bond with two sureties subject to listed conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2311 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Geeta Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Ajay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Geeta Devi and Tribhuwan Singh, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case No. 3251 of 2020, Case Crime No. 515 of 2019, under Sections- 306, 511, 332, 353, 504 IPC, Police StationDibiyapur, District- Auraiya, during pendency of trial.

¶7

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.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that applicants have tried to put themselves on fire in protest against the wrong investigation in the case lodged by the applicant No.1 as Case Crime No.146 of 2019, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, wherein the police has submitted final report.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is a case of false implication by the police. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal history to their credits. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. They have submitted that in view of the

¶11

seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicants. 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 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 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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 applicant.

¶19

In case, the applicants misuse 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 .

¶20

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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

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

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Ruchi Agrahari

Geeta Devi and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Devi and Another 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.

Mayank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Javed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.