Allahabad High Court
Ankit Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 February, 2021
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 02.02.2021 Delivered on17.02.2021 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9709 of 2020 Applicant :- Ankit Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aishwarya Pratap Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Ankit Saxena, in Case Crime No. 0194 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66C of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh .
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 informant lodged an first information report against unknown accuseds alleging offence under Section 379 I.P.C that someone has taken her personal details of Credit Information Bureau India Limited, (hereinafter referred to as CIBIL) from the Bank. The aforesaid information was handed over to her husband's family which can be misused for the purpose of taking loan and issuance of credit card. A complaint was made to the bank by the informant and the bank respondend that Sri Arpan Saxena, husband of the informant, moved an application along with the documents of his identity and hence the report was generated and given to her husband. It was matter between husband and wife and bank has nothing to do with the allegation. There is further allegation that on the basis of the aforesaid CIBIL report the family members of matrimonial home are pressurising the informant and she is under fear. This report was sent to the company of the informant and the investors stopped investment in her company and company had to be sold. The Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, who issued the aforesaid report, has misused his office. The informant had no account in the branch of Bank at Azamgarh from where the CIBIL report was generated. There is violation of Section 72 of I.T. Act too.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has also filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14279 of 2020 for quashing of the first information report lodged by opposite party no.2. Investigation is still going on. On account of un-cordial relation-ship of the husband of opposite party no.2 with her the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is cousin of her husband. After application was made by husband of opposite party no.2, Arpan Saxena, same was processed as per credit card policy of the Union Bank of India. Since the husband of opposite party no.2 made an application for issuing credit card for himself along with an add-on credit card in name of his wife, informant, hence the details of CIBIL report of opposite party no.2 were given to him. The application was rejected since the CIBIL report score of opposite party no.2 were not satisfactory. In the first information report allegations regarding misuse of the CIBIL report and closure of the company of opposite party no.2 are false. The applicant will withdraw the aforesaid writ petition as and when it comes for hearing before the court. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 stating that there are no exceptional circumstances for filing this application directly before this court. On the basis of leakage of credit information of the informant by the cousin of the applicant, Ankit Saxena, her husband is trying to sabotage the cases pending against him. Informant and her husband are residing at New Delhi and there was no justification for making application in bank at Azamgarh. The applicant has misused his position as Bank Manager and issued the secret credit information of the informant to her husband. Matrimonial dispute is already pending between the informant and her husband. As per guidelines of Reserved Bank of India credit information cannot be provided to any person, even to blood relation, until and unless consent of the account holder is obtained. The applicant has conspired with the co-accused, husband of the informant, Arpan Saxena and has issued the credit score details of the informant to her husband.
Learned AGA has also 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 hearing rival contentions it appears that the applicant has indulged in giving credit information of the informant to her husband without authorisation from her. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, part of Credit Information (Regulation) Act, 2005 has been brought on record wherein under Section 23, there is provision of punishment provided for any default by credit information company. Whether the offences alleged against the applicant would be made out from the material collected by the Investigating Officer are not, on the basis of investigation, is not clear, at this stage. It is not disputed that the investigation is still underway.
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 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 cognizance is taken by the court on 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 :- 17.02.2021 SS