This is an anticipatory bail application filed to secure release during the pendency of an FIR involving civil dispute allegations. The court granted bail ensuring surrender and adherence to trial dates.
Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing bond with two sureties subject to conditions including non-interference and appearance in trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5288 of 2020
Applicant :- Indrawati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S. A. Khan,Mohammad Hadees Khan
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Indrawati Devi , with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2020, under Sections- 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC, Police Station- Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, during pendency of trial.
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.
There is civil dispute regarding genuineness of sale deed and civil suits have been filed by both the parties against each other. During the pendency of civil suits, the applicant has been implicated in this case by way of first information report. Counsel for the applicant submits that the validity of the document cannot be decided in the present proceedings. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.
Counsel for the informant, Sri S.A. Khan, has filed counter affidavit and has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that from the allegations in the FIR, the offence alleged is fully made out.
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, 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
imaginary fear anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
After considering the rival submissions 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 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.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, she 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 contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant 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:-
to the Court or to any police officer;
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the existing facts and apprehension of arrest.
What conditions should be imposed on the applicant if bail is granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶12
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 · Who else cites this
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Applied¶13
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Indrawati Devi
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
