Allowed

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021ABAIL/954/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court considered allegations of fraudulent execution of a sale deed and directions issued by the apex court regarding bail conditions in serious offences.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Ramesh 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. - 954 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Dubey,Harendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant;Shri Awdhesh Rai, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA.

¶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 on behalf of the applicant,Ramesh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 866 of 2020, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 I.P.C., Police Station-Sarai Lakhansi, District- Mau, during pendency of trial.

¶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

There is allegation against the applicant that he has got sale deed executed fraudulently from the father of the informant. He was given room to reside in the house of her father on 17.4.2018. The vendor and father of the informant died on 2.8.2020 thereafter , informant came to know about the alleged offence and lodged the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the

¶12

applicant has submitted that vendor was father of the applicant .He had two wives . The informant is daughter of the first wife. Applicant is son of the second wife and only to avoid any dispute between the two children, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant. Applicant is not an outsider and did not got sale deed executed by fraud. He is son of the vendor. The suit for cancellation of the sale deed has also been instituted, which is pending.Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶13

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, he 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.

¶14

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 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

¶15

arrest of an accused should be made.

¶16

Hence in case of his arrest the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents 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 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. 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.

¶17

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be 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:-

¶18

The applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶19

The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶20

That 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;

¶21

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶22

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of

¶23

Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶24

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.2.2021

¶28

Atul kr. sri.

Ramesh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Jamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalwa Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasay Gazi Alias Abdul Wasay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Sachin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ramvir Vs State of U.P. and Another