Allowed

Sajid Rashidi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023ABAIL/3264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case alleging misuse of social media. The court imposed specific conditions, including a personal bond and a moratorium on social media usage, while directing expedited investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for limited period conditional upon bond, sureties, non-use of social media, and availability for interrogation.

Sajid Rashidi Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3264 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sajid Rashidi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya,Ch. Dil Nisar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Sajid Rashidi, in Case Crime No.- 03 of 2023, under Sections- 153-A, 295-A IPC and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station- Gangoh, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicant of misusing social media and posting communal messages.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit. The investigation is under way. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶9

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.

¶10

After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered/about to be 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

¶11

peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶12

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 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.

¶13

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 Court with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not use social media during investigation by police.

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) 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;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid Rashidi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Rashidi 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

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Asha Rani Vs State of U.P.

Prince Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.