Shimbhu Dayal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25542

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 875 of 2025

Applicant :- Shimbhu Dayal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Pandey 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 on behalf of the applicant, Shimbhu Dayal , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Section- 420, 406, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Mahuakhera, DistrictAligarh.

¶8

The applicant was granted earlier anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.06.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5828/2024 which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

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

¶10

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Shimbhu Dayal, in Case Crime No.- 143 of 2024, under Sections420, 406, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Mahuakhera, District-Aligarh.

¶11

There is allegation against the applicant that the applicant no. 2 along with three other co-accused has purchased the agricultural land from the O.P. No.2 and others.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the investigation is going on on and till date no chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant hence anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant. The applicant has not committed any kind of cheating or fraud against opposite party No. 2 regarding the aforesaid land. The applicant has been falsely

¶13

implicated in this case. He has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

¶16

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.

¶17

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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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. 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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. "

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was only marginal witness of the disputed sale deed. A marginal witness is expected to testify only the due execution of the document before him but not to the validity of the same. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he 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.

¶28

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 till the conclusion of trial 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:-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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;

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Abhishek

¶37

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shimbhu Dayal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimbhu Dayal 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

Kanha @ Devi Singh vs State of U.P.

Ramashankar Pandey @ Mallan Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Buddhesh Mani Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Bhoora vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another