Allowed

Smt. Sheetal Bathla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021ABAIL/5097/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the applicant for a limited period pending the submission of the police report. The bail is conditional on furnishing a bond and adhering to specific conditions such as surrendering the passport if held.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail pending submission of police report on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of similar amount.

Smt. Sheetal Bathla 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. - 5097 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sheetal Bathla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Singh,Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nikhil Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Verma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, Smt. Sheetal Bathla, in Case Crime No.- 2753 of 2019, under Sections420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

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.

¶9

There is allegation against the applicant that she has concocted an agreement to sell allegedly in the name of informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a tenant of the informant and the informant has falsely implicated her in the present case. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. 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, she 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

¶11

imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

After hearing the parties, it appears that the investigation is still underway. The correct facts are yet to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer. The applicant is already on interim anticipatory bail. This Court finds that there is a case registered/about to be registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend her. After the 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 an 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. 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 right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and her antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶14

In the event of arrest, the applicant 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 Court with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any

¶17

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;

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, 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.

¶23

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, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶24

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 KS

Smt. Sheetal Bathla v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheetal Bathla 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

Prashant Sharma @ Prashant Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. Another

Sriniwas Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Dayavati Vs State of Up

Lokesh Bansal @ Lomesh Basal Vs State of U.P.

Baliram Alias Rajendra 2 Others Vs State of U.P.