Ramroop Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13058

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 415 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramroop Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Babban Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ramroop Prajapati, in Case Crime No. 16 of 2014, under Sections- 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- RoZa, District- Shahjahanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the co-accused, Anuj Kumar Trivedi, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 25.3.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7534 of 2021. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in anticipatory bail application of co-accused. He has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶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 make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶15

(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;

¶16

(iii) 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./C.P./A.C.P. concerned.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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. O rder Date :- 24.1.2025 Ruchi Agrahari

¶20

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

Ramroop Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramroop Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Uraon vs State of U.P. Thr.Sec.Home U.P. at Lucknow

Jaiprakash Mishra @ Chhotkau vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ranveer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hanuman Tiwari vs State of U.P.