Allowed

Smt.Kanika Sharma and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021ABAIL/6022/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two female applicants against allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court observed that arrest should be the last option for police and discharged the applicants on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties till the submission of the final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for a limited period till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each.

Smt.Kanika Sharma and Another 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. - 6022 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt.Kanika Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, Smt. Kanika Sharma and Komal Sharma, in Case Crime No. 378 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Vrindavan, District- Mathura.

¶10

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.

¶11

Despite time granted on 24.09.2020, no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶12

As per the office report dated 05.01.2021, notice on opposite party no. 2, Anil Kumar, has been served but no one has put in appearance.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are ladies. Applicant no. 1 is the wife of informant/opposite party no.2, whereas the applicant no. 2 is the sister-in-law of informant/opposite party. 2. The applicants are innocent, but they have been falsely implicated in aforesaid case crime number for undue advantage. The husband of applicant no. 1 has lodged the impugned F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 19.06.2020 and inspite of the fact that a period of more than three months have rolled by, but no police report in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been submitted till date, nor police has collected any such material upto this stage on the basis of which complicity of the applicants can be said to be established in above-mentioned case crime number. Investigation is still going on. It is further submitted that the custodial arrest of the applicants is not necessary. Applicants undertake to co-operate with the investigation. It is thus submitted that the benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of present applicants.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the

¶15

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.

¶16

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 them. 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 rights 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.

¶17

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents, the applicants are 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.

¶18

In the event of arrest, the applicants 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. 50,000/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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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 applicants.

¶25

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 applicants.

¶26

The applicants are 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.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 KS

Smt.Kanika Sharma and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kanika Sharma and Another 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

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Indrawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Lal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Yameen Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Arun Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Pachouri Vs State of U.P. and Another