Ramaadhar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5825

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12249 of 2024

Applicant :- Ramaadhar And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gulhuma,Haseeb Alam Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Ramaadhar, Shiv Prashad, Santosh Bhuinya @ Santosh Kumar, Dharmjeet Prajapati, Dehuti and Vifani, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case No. 247 of 2023 (State Vs. Ramaadhar and others), Case Crime No. 126 of 2015, under Sections 147, 149, 395, 427, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Duddhi, District- Sonbhadra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicants were not named in the First Information Report. The incident took place on 13.4.2015. Applicants have been implicated in this case by way of supplementary charge sheet filed in the year 2022. They undertake to cooperate with trial. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have definite apprehension that they 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 applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants 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 applicants. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. 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

¶11

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.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

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

¶17

The applicants 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 applicants.

¶18

In case, the applicants misuse 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.

¶19

The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶20

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 applicants.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

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

Ramaadhar and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramaadhar and 5 Others 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