Advocates:
['ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA', 'G A', '', 'bhupesh kumar tripathi']

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S

438 CR.P.C. No. - 7128 of 2021

Applicant :- Suhail Qadri

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shrivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhupesh Kumar Tripathi

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

As per Resolution dated 7.4.2021 of the

Committee of this Court for the Purpose of Taking

Preventive and Remedial Measures and for

Combating the Impending Threat of Covid-19,this

case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Bhupesh

Kumar Tripathi,learned counsel for the informant and

learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with

a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the

applicant,Suhail Qadri , in Case Crime No. 0025 of

2021, under Sections- 323,504,506,377 I.P.C., and

section 3/4 Muslim Women(Protection of Right of

Marriage) Act, 2019 Police Station- Kirtapur ,

District- Bijnor.

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 allegation against the applicant is of pronouncing of

Tripal Talak, subjection of his wife to unnatural intercourse,

threatening her and beating her. Learned counsel for the

applicant has submitted that in view of the judgement of

Apex Court in the case Rahana Jalal vs. State of Kerala and

Another, dated 17.12.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.

883 of 2020,notice of this application has been accepted

by the counsel for the wife of the applicant but he has not

filed counter affidavit and availed the opportunity of

hearing.There is prior litigation between the parties.There

is civil suit pending between the brothers of the informant

and his wife regarding the property which was gifted to his

wife by her father-in-law.On account of internal dispute

between the family members applicant has been falsely

implicated in this case. He has no criminal history to his

credit. The applicant 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 applicant. It

cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend

him. 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 unnecessa