Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49749 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 2334 of 2025 Applicant :- Preeti Devi Alias Preeti Saraoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Mishra,Kamla Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Pal,G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Sri Anil Kumar Pal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and has informed that non-bailable warrant are being issued against the applicant. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Preeti Devi Alias Preeti Saraoj, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 561 of 2020, under Sections- 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station- Colonnelganj, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial. Counsel for the applicant submits that she was granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 6356 of 2021. Cognizance has been taken by the trial court on police report on 25.07.2024. The applicant is woman and has been implicated by her husband falsely in this case. She undertakes to cooperate with the trial. She has no previous criminal history to her credit. The applicant has definite apprehension that she 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, she 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 her. 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 right 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. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, she is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:- 1. The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court. 2. The applicant shall surrender her passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Her passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court. 3. That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant. 5. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application. 6. The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Rohit Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad