Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pushpa Singh And Another vs State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 ... on 26 April, 2022
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2851 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Pushpa Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Krishna Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0070 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, district South (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar), during pendency of investigation/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.
The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against six named persons including the applicants. It was alleged in the FIR that aunt of the complainant had executed an agreement with the deceased Dharam Singh to purchase a house bearing no.14/H-2, Block No.14, Scheme No.40, Dabauli, district Kanpur Nagar measuring 167.22 sq. mtrs. It was agreed upon between the parties that the value of the said property is Rs. 2.65 crores and the circle rate was said to be Rs.1.40 crores and as an advance a sum of Rs.1.51 lacs was given on 23.10.2019. Again on different dates money was given to the deceased Dharam Singh. It was further alleged that Dharam Singh said to the aunt of the informant that he sell the plot/house but the sale deed could not be executed due to COVID condition across the country and during this period the deceased Dharam Singh who had executed the agreement to sell has died on 22.06.2020. It was also alleged that the informant's aunt contacted the legal heirs of the deceased Dharam Singh and asked them to execute the sale deed but sale deed could not be executed on various alleged pretexts. It was further alleged that they again given money to the applicants. It was also alleged that the applicants and other legal heirs of Dharam Singh had not executed the sale deed and threatened the informant and his aunt to face consequences.
Learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that an agreement to sale was executed between the informant and the husband of applicant no.1. He submitted that the applicants were ready to execute the sale deed but the informant and his aunt were not able to arrange the required money for the execution of the sale deed and just to create pressure on false accusation this false F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant only just to tarnish their images and injure their reputation in the society by having them so arrested. He submitted that no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against applicants. He submitted that applicants undertake to cooperate during investigation and they will not tamper with the evidence in any way.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.
After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend them. After lodging of F.I.R, 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 F.I.R 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 Vs. 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 right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest of an accused should be made. The learned counsel has also place reliance on the order dated 28.7.2021 passed by the The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021 Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that prima facie, we cannot appreciate why in such a scenario is there a requirement for the petitioner being sent to custody.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, considering that accusation might have been lodged with an object to injure the reputation of the applicants by having them so arrested, considering the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail.
Let the applicants Smt. Pushpa Singh and Manoj Kumar Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/ Investigating Officer concerned with the following conditions:-
1.The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial/ investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they has no passport, they will file their affidavits before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. 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;
6. The applicants shall maintain law and order.
7. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
8. In case, the applicants 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 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. 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.
Order Date :- 26.4.2022 R./