Allowed

Smt Sabnam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2022ABAIL/9961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Allahabad High Court allowed the second anticipatory bail application of Smt. Sabnam pending trial for offences under IPC and Essential Commodities Act. Bail granted with personal bond and sureties subject to conditions including presence during trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail by furnishing personal bond with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Smt Sabnam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9961 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Sabnam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant , Smt. Sabnam , with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2020, under Section 506/120-B IPC and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

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.

¶8

This is second anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶9

The first anticipatory bail application of the applicant was allowed by this court by the order dated 04.02.2021 granting anticipatory bail to applicant for a limited period till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., before the competent court.

¶10

The applicant has brought on record the charge sheet submitted against the petitioner dated 23.03.2021 where cognizance has been taken by the court below on 26.03.2021.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Aanganwadi worker working under a Supervisor, Mamta, in Gram Sabha Bhiti, Development Block- Shivrajpur, Kanpur Nagar. During lockdown imposed by the Government of India due to spread of novel corona virus, she was directed to

¶12

monitor. The distribution of nutritional food to migrants coming from outside. She distributed the nutritional food ( poshahar ) received in the month of May and June, 2020 to the eligible persons. She had nothing to do with the distribution to commodities of fair price shop. She has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶13

The allegations in the FIR are regarding the irregularity in the distribution of the commodities of fair price shop which was owned by the fair price dealer, Dharmendra Kumar. She was only appointed as Nodel Officer to lookafter the distribution of essential commodities of the fair price shop on 11.09.2020 by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. In the FIR, she was not named and has been implicated as accused by way of implication under Section 120-B IPC. The charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicant. She has no criminal history to her credit and hence she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial. The applicant has definite apprehension that she may be arrested by the police any time.

¶14

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, she 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.

¶15

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 her. 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 right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and

¶16

circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶17

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, she is directed 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. 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.

¶18

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶21

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

¶22

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶23

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

¶24

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing

¶25

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 her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶26

Order Date :- 31.10.2022 Rohit

¶27

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.11.01 17:41:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sabnam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sabnam 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

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anees Vs State of U.P.

Anshu Yadav @ Sanjiv Vs State of U.P.

Birendra Bahadur Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Seema Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.