Disposed

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022CRLP/15972/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and a direction not to arrest petitioners. Observing that the remaining offences were punishable with seven years or less, the court held guidelines in Vimal Kumar and State of Bihar and Arnesh Kumar were applicable.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without any specific order of quashing or non-arrest under the given guidelines.

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15972 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri G.P.Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no. 3.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 22.9.2022 being Case Crime No. 356 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and 3(2)(VA), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sarai Akil, Distt. Kaushambi and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

At the very outset, on the basis of instructions learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during investigation, Section 307 IPC, 3(2)(VA), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act have already been deleted and as such, it has been pressed 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 41-A 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.

¶9

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 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 is 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 :- 16.11.2022 A.K.Srivastava

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.17 17:38:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nahar Singh @ Nem Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Srikant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahipal and 8 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Zakir Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sneh Lata Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others