Disposed

Lalman and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022CRLP/18702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction against arrest. Relying on statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents regarding arrest procedures, the court found the petition infructuous vis-a-vis one petitioner already arrested. For remaining petitioners, the petition stands disposed of in light of cited j

What did the court decide?

The petition stands disposed of in view of judgments cited above. No specific direction to respondents regarding arrest of remaining petitioners was granted.

Lalman and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18702 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Lalman And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri C.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-Respondents.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. on the instructions apprise the Court that petitioner no. 3 Ramratan has has already been arrested on 27.11.2022 as such the cause for filing petition qua petitioner no. 3 no more survives. Writ petition has become infructuous in respect of petitioner no. 3. Name of petitioner no. 3 is deleted from the array of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners is pressing relief only in respect of petitioner nos. 1 & 2.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 16.10.2022 being Case Crime No. 215 of 2022 under Sections 452, 354, 354-Kha, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Visharatganj, Distt. Bareilly and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶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 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.

¶9

The investigating agencies and their ofÏcers 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

¶10

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 ofÏcer to record his reasons in writing while making the arrest. Thus, a police ofÏcer 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).

¶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 judgements 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 :- 9.12.2022

¶14

n.u.

¶15

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.12.19 14:16:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalman and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalman and 2 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

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravendra and and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Ram Vs State of U P and Another

Ismail Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lallu @ Mansoor Ahamd Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others