Rohit vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Rohit, until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that arrest should be the last resort for the police, restricted to exceptional cases where custodial interrogation is imperative, as irrational and indiscriminate arrests violate human rights. Citing *Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, the Court noted that arrests can be a source of corruption and that personal liberty is a precious fundamental right. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's observations in *Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation* regarding the necessity of custody. Without expressing an opinion on the merits, and considering the nature of accusations, antecedents, and the possibility of the accusation being lodged to injure the applicant's reputation, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and adhering to specific conditions including providing address and mobile number, not leaving the country without permission, not obstructing the investigation, surrendering the passport, not inducing witnesses, maintaining law and order, and not seeking adjournments for evidence.

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Rohit (the applicant) in Case Crime No. 166 of 2021, registered at Police Station Pakbara, district Moradabad. The FIR was lodged against co-accused persons alleging offenses including fraud, anti-national activities, criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, and evasion of tax/GST, causing revenue loss to the government. The applicant claims innocence and false implication, stating that no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him and that a charge sheet has not yet been filed. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and not tamper with evidence. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of fraud, tax evasion (GST), and other criminal offenses, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding personal liberty and the necessity of arrest. Contentions: Petitioner (Rohit): Argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He highlighted that no proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated and no charge sheet has been filed. He assured cooperation with the investigation and undertook not to tamper with evidence. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in *Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, *Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation*, and *Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)*. Revenue/State: Opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.