Advocates:
['SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY', '', 'GAURAV SHARMA', 'G A']

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11231 of 2021

Applicant :- Sanjiv Pandey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Dubey,Gaurav

Sharma

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for

State through video conferencing.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a

prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, Sanjiv Pandey

in Case Crime No.0135/2021 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323,

504, 506, 427, 452, 419, 420, 379 IPC, Police Station George

Town, District Prayagraj.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute is

civil in nature. The first informant namely Shakuntla Patel has

already preferred Civil Suit no.191 of 2021, wherein, interm

relief was accorded in favour of first informant. Just to give

colour to the same, the present FIR has been lodged as a

pressure tactics. The applicant has no criminal history to his

credit. He has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by

the police any time.

Learned A.G.A. 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 against the applicants. 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 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 arrest 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.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and

considering the nature of accusation and their antecedent, 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 competent Court

on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 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 themselves 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 a