M.C. Tripathi ORDER
M.C. Tripathi, J.
1. 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.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.
3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, Hariansh Yadav and Ranjeet, in Case Crime No. 0026 of 2021, under Sections-323, 354-B, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Pawara, District- Jaunpur.
4. 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.
5. There is allegation that applicants have committed marpeet with the first informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties and as a pressure tactics, the present first information report has been filed with false and concocted story. The applicants have been falsely implicated by the first informant in collusion with the police with ulterior motive. The applicants have no criminal history to their credits. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the present matter the chargesheet has been submitted but cognizance has not been taken by the Court below. The said fact has not been disputed by learned A.G.A.
7. 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.
8. 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 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 ........