There has been a huge debate on the power of arrest of the police. The debate highlights various important points on grounds of which the arrest by police has been justified in some situations while opposed in some. The cases that have been registered till now related to this controversy have also come out with different views and opinions. The case of Sachin Saini v. State of Up and 2 others revolves around the granting of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The petition highlights some of the crucial points including the contentions of both the applicant and the respondents.
Facts: The FIR lodged in the present case is regarded as a counter to the FIR lodged by the complainant. According to the complainant, an FIR was lodged against him by his father on 24.08.2020. The charges that were put on him were as under section 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. the main ground that was taken in the FIR was that the complainant has not committed the above-mentioned crimes and the allegations against him are false. The grant of anticipatory bail has been put forward by the counsel of the applicant with the support of various grounds.
- Whether the allegations put by the complainant’s father on him are true or not?
- Whether the complainant is eligible for the grant of interim bail?
The FIR that was filed against the applicant by his father was filed based on the charges as under:
Section 147 I.P.C.- the offense of rioting and punishment
Section 148 I.P.C.- the offense of rioting armed with a deadly weapon and punishment for the same
Section 323 I.P.C.- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Section 504 I.P.C.- intentional insults that lead to provocation of a person so that he breaks public peace
Section 506 I.P.C.- Punishment for criminal intimidation
The provisions are all from the same code.
Submissions by the applicant:
The learned counsel of the applicant has submitted that the allegations put on the applicant are not true and the applicant is being falsely defamed. Also, the council puts forward a time that the applicant is not having any criminal history. The reason for the filing of the application for anticipatory bail is because the applicant is of apprehension that he might get arrested on basis of the FIR filed by his father against him.
Submission by the opposition:
Learned counsel on behalf of the opposition party has submitted that the allegations that have been laid on the applicant are not minor. The offenses are of a serious nature and anticipatory bail in such cases cannot be granted to retain the validation of law. also, the apprehension of the applicant is not present on any paperwork and no record is present for the same. Based on imaginary apprehension, bail cannot be granted to the applicant.
After the consideration of the submissions made by the counsels of both the parties, the Court opined that there was a case registered against the applicant by his father.
Some cases were cited by the court while passing the order. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the third report of the National Police Commission was referred by the apex court. The report stated that the main cause of corruption in the country was the arrests by police. It was contended that nearly 60% of the cases are unreasonable and are sometimes unnecessary too. The unjustified actions of the police accounted for an increase in the expenditure in the jails. Also, such arrests are against human rights as discriminatory arrests are not in accordance with fundamental rights.
The court, at last, passed the order for the release of the application based on anticipatory bail. The applicant was said to be involved in the aforesaid crimes and several conditions were to be followed by the applicant. The conditions involved that the applicant could not leave the country without prior permission, the application had to surrender his passport, cannot misuse the liberty granted via bail, presence of the applicant in the trial court when called. The verification of the documents of the applicant was required so that the applicant does not take any step that goes against the rules and regulations.
The judgment is significant in understanding that the provision of anticipatory bail can be used by people so that unnecessary arrests can be avoided. This will also lead to a decrease in corruption amongst authorities. The order given by the court states that the person was under some obligations. Such obligations are also important because they bind a person which prevents him from committing any crime in future instances. Such orders are of importance to prove that courts are also going against the arrests and if a reasonable cause is present, anticipatory bails can be granted by the court to preserve some of the human rights.
Analysis By – Sejal Makkad