Disposed

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022CRLP/16676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for quashing an FIR and directing no arrest, the Allahabad High Court held that guidelines framing non-arrest principles for offenses punishable with seven years imprisonment, as established in Vimal Kumar and Arnesh Kumar, were applicable. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of based on applicability of non-arrest guidelines and previous judgments; specific order text regarding arrest inhibition not explicitly detailed in the operative portion.

Arun Kumar Singh 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. - 16676 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 20.09.2022 being Case Crime No.462 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC and Section 2 and 20 of The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Azamgarh and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

The submission is that all alleged o:ences 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 petitioner has been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 di:erent cases, relating to o:ences providing punishment of seven years or less.

¶8

The investigating agencies and their o>cers 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 o>cer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police o>cer is duty-bound to record the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of non-compliance with

¶9

Section 41 shall certainly inure to the bene@t of the person suspected of the o:ence. 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 @rst 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 :- 14.11.2022

¶13

n.u.

¶14

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.11.15 10:19:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh 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

Padeep Kumar Majhwar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammad Ali @ Kamal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Pandey and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Rohit Butler and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vaishno Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others