Courts should be wary of 'almost perfect' FIRs while considering relief to accused: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that denial of prompt protection from arrest is a big source of corruption in Uttar Pradesh [Shobit Nehra and Another v. State of UP and 2 Others]..A Bench of Justices Siddharth and Syed Hasan Rizvi said that since the High Court does not entertain anticipatory bail applications, the accused have to first move the sessions court, where much time is lost and most of the pleas are rejected.“During this period police gets sufficient opportunity to arrest an accused or exempt him from arrest in lieu of money or other considerations. Another practical problem is large number of filing of anticipatory bail applications in this court per day,” the Court said..The Bench made the observations while dealing with a petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and protection from arrest during the pendency of the plea.The Court highlighted that on an average, 70-80 anticipatory bail applications are filed before the High Court around 2,500 such applications are pending at present. .During the pendency of such applications, many accused get arrested by the police and many anticipatory applications are dismissed as infructuous, it added. “Most of those who escape arrest have to manage the police. As soon as the notice of filing of anticipatory bail applications by an accused reaches the police station concerned the effort of his arrest gets intensified by the informant in the police both. The denial of prompt protection from arrest in a big source of corruption. [To save] himself from arrest the accused has no option but to please the police on day to day basis in the hope getting protection from arrest first in proceedings u/A 226 of Constitution of India then in proceedings under Section 438 Cr.P.C from the sessions Court and then from High Court,” the Court said.It also commented that some accused manage the police even till they approach the top court. .Thus, the Bench observed that if limited protection from arrest is granted to accused by the High Court till conclusion of the investigation, the workload of the sessions court and the High Court can be reduced and unnecessary harassment of litigants by the police can also be avoided."In such a situation relegating an accused from the court hearing matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to avail remedy u/s 438 Cr.P.C before Sessions Court and then before the High Court only for protection from arrest during investigation amounts to harassment of a litigant," it added..FIRs are drafted by experts.In its judgment, the Court also said that FIRs these days are drafted by legal experts or head constables so meticulously that courts often deny relief on a bare reading.It advised that in cases of possible false implication, courts should interfere irrespective of the severity of the allegations.“Very long FIR containing the precise allegations making out the ingredients for constituting the alleged offences are mostly drafted by experts and the courts are required to be cautious of such FIRs which appear to be almost perfect with regard to allegations made therein. The human acts are imperfect and the genuine FIR does not contains the perfect recital supported by all the ingredients for constituting all the offences alleged. Therefore, protecting the liberty of the petitioner / accused during the pendency of investigation is in accordance of requirement of Article 21 of constitution of India,” it said..The Court added that no rule of convenience or niceties of law of procedure can override the constitutional mandate.“In case relief is denied to the petitioner / accused under Article 226 of constitution of India and he is compelled to obtain bail/ anticipatory bail during the period of investigation and then if the investigating officer finds, after concluding investigation, that implication of petitioner / accused was not correct then the state has not made any provision to indemnify such an accused / petitioner for under going the troubles in obtaining bail / anticipatory bail...".In the present case, the Court protected the accused from arrest till cognisance of the chargesheet by the trial court. .Senior Advocate VP Srivastava with Advocates Rahul Chaudhary and Salil Singh represented the accused.Senior Advocate Vinay Sharan and Advocate Atul Kumar Shahi represented the complainant..[Read Judgment]