Allowed

Smt. Shalini Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021ABAIL/959/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to seven applicants in a criminal case involving land encroachment and forgery allegations. The bail was conditioned on a personal bond, sureties, and restrictions on interference with witnesses or leave of the country.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the upshot under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions of bail.

Smt. Shalini Pandey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 959 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shalini Pandey And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Srivastava,Ma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Smt. Shalini Pandey, Nandini Pandey, Dr. Anupama Raghav, Awadhesh Chandra Manglik, Amar Rathor, Parmanand and Gokul in Case Crime No. 678 of 2019, under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 484, 336, 376, 511 I.P.C. , Police Station - Izet Nagar, District - Bareilly.

¶8

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.

¶9

The applicants are already on interim protection granted by this court vide order dated 15.12.2020.

¶10

There is allegation in the First Information Report that applicants are trying to illegally encroach the land in dispute.They have fabricated some valuable security for the purpose of getting compensation. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. They have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 arrest of an accused should be made.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the court on the 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 Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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 office;

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation 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.

¶22

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, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.2.2021

¶24

Atul kr. sri.

Smt. Shalini Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shalini Pandey and 6 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Shareef Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sushma Jindal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Pratap and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish @ Bablu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another