Allowed

Narendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 May 2021ABAIL/6848/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of cheating and forgery. Bail is conditioned on a personal bond, availability for interrogation, and restrictions on inducing witnesses or leaving India.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6848 of 2021 Applicant :- Narendra Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Prashant, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing.

¶4

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.487 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C at Police Station Kotwali Sahar, District Mirzapur. 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.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present first information report has been lodged against 20 persons. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present first information report on false facts. There is no allegation against the applicant in the impugned first information report that the applicant has committed any forgery and also there is no allegation against the applicant that he has used forged documents, hence, no case under Sections 468 & 471 IPC is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that similarly placed coaccused, namely, Praval Dev and Subhash Chandra Yadav have already been granted bail by order of date passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8020 of 2020 & 183 of 2021 respectively, copies whereof have been annexed as Annexure Nos.3 & 4 to the application. Since the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶6

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 them. After the

¶7

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.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their 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 .

¶9

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. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 pending who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.5.2021/Ajeet

Narendra Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh 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

Kashi Nath Maurya @ Kashi Prasad Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rama Nand 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chakresh Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sorib @ Bilal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Javed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another