Dismissed

Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020CRLP/14831/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and a stay of arrest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that cognizable offences of kidnapping cannot be quashed and a stay on arrest is impermissible when quashing is denied, dismissing the prayers while observing on arrest procedures.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR and stay of arrest dismissed; right to seek anticipatory bail preserved.

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14831 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the First Information Report dated 07.09.2020, registered as Case Crime No. 306 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station-Sachendi, DistrictKanpur Nagar, with a further prayer to stay the arrest during pendency of investigation of the said case.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and stay of arrest and submitted that from the perusal of First Information Report, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly made out, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.

¶8

The allegation in the first information report is that the petitioner along with the other co-accused kidnapped and abducted the daughter of the first informant. We find that the F.I.R. clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence, consequently, we agree with the submission of learned A.G.A. that the first information report cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶9

In respect of the second prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for stay of arrest of the petitioner till submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, we would like to take notice of the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani; 2017 (2) SCC 779 wherein the Supreme Court has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies from arresting the accused where prayer for quashing the F.I.R. has been declined. Relying on the said decision, the Supreme Court entertained Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2020 (Samiksha Singh @ Nikki v. The State of U.P. & Others) wherein similar direction issued by the High Court staying arrest until the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was under challenge. The order is as follows: -

¶10

"1. Mr Sanchit Garga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶11

petitioner, submits that while the High Court declined to quash the FIR, at the same time, it has granted an order protecting the accused from arrest until the submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which, it has been submitted, is impermissible in law. He relies on a decision of this Court in State of Telengana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani .

¶12

2. Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

¶13

3. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, in addition."

¶14

Having regard to the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Telengana (supra) , we also decline to grant the second prayer.

¶15

Before parting, we would like to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1994 SC . 1349 in relation to personal liberty of a citizen and the manner in which police officer should exercise his power to arrest accused person, so that the same is duly complied with:-

¶16

"A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do."

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail/bail, in case the situation warrants. If any such recourse is taken, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.12.2020

¶19

¶20

(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sagar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Nath Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vipin Yadav @ Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anshu Vaish Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pankaj Jain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hansnath Singh Vs State of U.P. and

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others