The Single Judge granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant, Amit Shukla, invested with the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal, pending the investigation and trial.
Granted interim anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to four conditions.
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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6130 of 2021
Applicant :- Amit Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Vikrant Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0667 of 2020, under Sections- 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Etawah 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.
Urge made on behalf of the applicant is confined to the ambit that the applicant has no nexus with the offence in question and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegations levelled against the applicant are vague and baseless and without any substance. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of misusing the liberty of anticipatory bail.
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, he is not entitled to get 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 by this Court.
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 F.I.R, the arrest can be made by the police at any point of time. 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.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and possibility of further surging of the pandemic, he may be entitled 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.
Taking into consideration the nature of accusation and lack of criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on interim anticipatory bail in this case, at this stage. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail is disposed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant Amit Shukla involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail during investigation, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned on the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
(iv) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the absence of criminal antecedents and the serious nature of allegations.
Whether the grant of interim bail in a pending investigation complies with the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Shukla
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
