Disposed

Rashid Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2022CRLP/12216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and prohibiting arrest. Relying on prior judgments regarding arrest procedures, the court found the established guidelines applicable to the facts.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of in view of cited judgments without a specific direction to quash the FIR or halt arrest.

Rashid Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12216 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rashid Ali And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambrish Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Buddhi Prakash

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Buddhi Prakash, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 2.7.2022 being Case Crime No.0353 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 P.S. Mau Aima, Distt. Prayagraj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly 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).

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 15.9.2022 AKK

¶13

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.09.16 19:25:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Ali and 3 Others 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

Gaurav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Zafar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Salman Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avinash Pandey Alias Atal Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhakar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others