Disposed

Hariom and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022CRLP/11782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioners sought quashing of an FIR and directions not to arrest. The High Court observed that serious charges under Section 307 IPC were deleted, rendering the maximum punishment less than seven years. Relying on Arnesh Kumar and Vimal Kumar guidelines, the court held that non-compliance with Section 41A mandates is not就成了.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition in view of the cited judgments, effectively preventing arrest as per guidelines for offences punishable with seven years or less imprisonment.

Hariom and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11782 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Hariom And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 6.8.2022 being Case Crime No.503 of 2022 under Section 147, 307, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad, Distt. Farrukhabad and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

On the matter being taken up today, Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA on the basis of instructions has apprised to the Court that during investigation Section 307 IPC has already been deleted.

¶8

The submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41A Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) in which guidelines have been framed following the judgement of the Apex Court in different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.

¶9

The investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception has been well recognised through the repetitive pronouncements of the Apex Court, which is on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Ref. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1. This provision mandates the police officer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police officer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly

¶10

inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41 and 41A, it is obvious that they are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The same has been elaborately dealt with in paragraphs 7.1 to 12 of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).

¶11

We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by this Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

¶12

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments cited above.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.9.2022 SP/

¶14

Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.09.23 11:01:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Hemant Singh Chauhan Alias Hemwant Singh Chauhan @ Hewant Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Uma Kant Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Smt. Vandana Jain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sisir Kumar Patro and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Swati Jain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others