Shareef Khan vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the Court emphasized that arrest should be the last option for the police, reserved for imperative situations or where custodial interrogation is required. Citing the Supreme Court's observations in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding unnecessary arrests and the importance of personal liberty, the Court found that the applicant's apprehension of arrest was not unfounded. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the nature of the accusation and the applicant's antecedents, the Court granted anticipatory bail until cognizance is taken by the court on the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, along with conditions including availability for interrogation, non-inducement of witnesses, and depositing his passport. The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Shareef Khan, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2020, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 of the I.T. Act. The allegations against him include misuse of E-way bills, causing loss of revenue to the government. The petitioner, a registered Saw Mill owner under GST, claims to be falsely implicated and fears arrest during the ongoing investigation. The State opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and arguing that the petitioner's apprehension was unfounded. The court noted that an FIR had been lodged and arrest could be made at any time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of misuse of E-way bills and causing revenue loss to the government? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that he is a registered GST dealer operating a Saw Mill and has been falsely implicated. He argued that arrest should be a last resort, citing the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. He expressed a genuine apprehension of arrest during the ongoing investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations of revenue loss and arguing that the applicant's apprehension was not based on any material on record, but rather on imaginary fear.