Allahabad High Court
Pankaj @ Nitesh Paswan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 January, 2021
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9345 of 2020 Applicant :- Pankaj @ Nitesh Paswan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Pankaj @ Nitesh Paswan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.115 of 2020, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 147 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi, during pendency of trial.
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.
It transpires from record that in respect of an incidents, which occurred on 23.07.2020, an FIR was lodged by informant Chanda Devi on 23.07.2020 which was registered as Case Crime No. 115 of 2020, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 147 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, three persons, namely, Suneel Kumar Ram (applicant), Manjeet and Pankaj have been nominated as accused. As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR, it is alleged that named accused persons molested the modesty of daughter of first informant and further injured the informant and her husband Lalta Prasad and Amit, who is friend of informant's husband on account of which, they have been sustained injuries and are undergoing treatment in a Hospital.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned case crime number. The applicant and the first informant are next door neighbours. Learned counsel for applicant further contends that the F.I.R. was lodged on 23.07.2020. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than two months and twelve days have rolled by from the date of lodging of the F.I.R., police has not collected any such material against the applicant up to this stage, on the basis of which complicity of the applicant can be said to be established in above mentioned case crime number giving rise to this application for anticipatory bail. It is then contended that the investigation is still going on but the custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary for investigating the above mentioned case crime number. Applicant undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is a Government Servant and there is definite apprehension of his arrest by the Police. The applicant has no criminal history. On the aforesaid factual and legal premises, it is thus urged that benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in favour of present applicant.
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.
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.
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.
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:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;
(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;
(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. concerned.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
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.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Ruchi Agrahari