Disposed

Shishu Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2018CRLP/1013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed that any future arrest of the petitioner in a case where the maximum sentence is not more than seven years must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. This direction was suspended if a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was subsequently filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to comply with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A Cr.P.C. for arrest in cases where potential sentence is not more than 7 years; order ceases if Section 173(2) report is filed.

Shishu Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1013 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Shishu Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Iqbal Farooqui,Sharad Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

¶5

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.0319 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, so far as it relates to the petitioner and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest him in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

¶7

It is contended that if the charges in the said offence are found to be proved even then sentence of more than seven years cannot be awarded and in view of this, mechanically arrest should not be effectuated by the police personnel.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.

¶9

We have gone through the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., which, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, we are not inclined to interfere in the F.I.R.

¶10

The fact of the matter is that till date arrest has not been effectuated and this is mere apprehension of the petitioner that he would be arrested in breach of provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. Once there is statutory provision provided for then it is always expected that the said provisions would be adhered to and in case there is any violation of the same, complaint can also be made before the Magistrate concerned to remedy the situation.

¶11

In view of the above, it is hereby directed that in case arrest of petitioner is to be effectuated and the offence, in which he is wanted, will not entail sentence of more than 7 years then in that event concerned police personnel should deal with the matter in compliance of the provisions as contained under Section 41 (1) (b) read with Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶12

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶13

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.1.2018 pk

Shishu Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishu Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Shahajade and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Sarim Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sujeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramman and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Babu Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.