Allahabad HC: Election Commission, increased courts, authorities did not see dangers from holding polls

The Allahabad High Court has noticed that “the Election Commission, the Higher Courts and the Government failed to fathom the disastrous consequences of permitting the elections in few States and the Panchayat elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh”.
While the Covid-19 an infection “had not reached the village population in its first wave…last year, [it] has now spread to the villages”, the courtroom stated.
According to the courtroom, the state authorities “is having tough time in controlling the spread of novel coronavirus in urban areas”, and it will be very tough to hold out checks, detect infections, and deal with the inhabitants within the villages.
“The State lacks preparation and resources for the same at present,” a single choose Bench of Justice Siddharth stated in an order permitting an software for anticipatory bail on Monday.

The courtroom noticed that on account of the latest panchayat elections in Uttar Pradesh, a lot of FIRs had been lodged within the villages. “Even otherwise the crime rate in the village is quite high in the State,” it stated.
“Keeping in view the overall situation of the villages after the Panchayat elections large number of accused persons may be infected and their infection may not have been detected,” the courtroom stated.
In view of those information and circumstances, “and after finding that the apprehension to life in the current scenario is a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused”, the courtroom directed that “the applicant, in case of his arrest, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the limited period, till 03 of January, 2022” on a specified set of circumstances.
The software was filed by one Prateek Jain, a resident of Ghaziabad, who was booked for dishonest, forgery, fraud, felony intimidation, and felony breach of belief.
The courtroom stated “the law is a dynamic concept and it is required to be interpreted as per the requirements of time” – and “with the change in the requirements of time, the interpretation and application of law is required to be adopted with change”.

The pre-requisite situation of apprehension of arrest is survival of the accused, the courtroom stated. “Only when the accused would be protected from apprehension of death the apprehension of his arrest would arise. Article 21…provides for protection of life and personal liberty of every citizen.”
The courtroom stated that “if an accused dies on account of the explanations past his management when he might have been protected against loss of life by the Court, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail to him could be an train in futility.
“Hence, the apprehension of death on account of reasons like the present pandemic of novel coronavirus can certainly be held to be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused.”
There have been a number of methods during which an arrested particular person might contract the virus, the courtroom stated, together with from jail inmates, police, and courtroom personnel. “There is no proper testing, treatment and care of the persons confined in jails,” it stated.

The courtroom referred to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, allowing journalist Siddique Kappan to be transferred to AIIMS for therapy after he was contaminated with Covid-19 in Mathura. “The fundamental right to life unconditionally embraces even an undertrial,” the High Court stated.
The courtroom noticed that the informant or complainant might take objection to the reduction being granted to the applicant and could also be dissatisfied with the observations on this judgment in favour of accused. But, “they need to not lose sight of the truth that solely when the accused could be alive he could be subjected to the conventional process of legislation of arrest, bail and trial. The legislation presumes him to be harmless until the offence alleged towards him is proved past doubt earlier than the Competent Court.