Advocates:
['ASHISH PANDEY', '', 'SATYA PRAKASH RATHOR', 'G A']

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9212 of 2021

Applicant :- Shanker

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

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey,Satya Prakash Rathor

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 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 and learned A.G.A for

State through video conferencing.

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

This exemption application is allowed.

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a

prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case

Crime No.36 of 2021, under Sections- 379/411I.P.C. and

Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Propert Act,

Police Station-Garotha, District- Jhansi.

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.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is absolutely innocent has falsely been implicated in

the present case with some ulterior motive by the first informant

in collusion with police. 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 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 his antecedents and

also the second surge in the cases of coronavirus and possibility

of further surge of the pandemic, the applicant is entitled to be

released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case

cons