JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, Rakesh Kumar Arora, Surajbhan Agarwal and Ankush Tyagi, in Case Crime No.1064 of 2020, under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Vijay Nagar, District-Ghaziabad.

3. 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.

4. The informant is also member of the Housing Society in dispute. The applicants are President and Secretary of the Housing Society. After resigning from the membership of the society, the informant has filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the office bearers of the society from selling the property of the society further. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that on account of internal dispute between the members and office bearers of the society, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. A civil suit is already pending before the civil court with regard to almost similar allegations. The applicants have no criminal history to their credits. They have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. 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 are not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

6. 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 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 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 case, the arrest of an accused should be made.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents, the applicants are 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.

8. In the event of arrest, the applicants 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