Disposed

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

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2022CRLP/4949/2022

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 the petitioner. Relying on precedents regarding offences punishable by seven years or less, the Court held that arrest guidelines must be followed and concluded the matter without specifying further relief. The order was digitally signed on 16.09.2022.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition in view of cited judgments without specifying further relief. No explicit order on arrest or quashing recorded in the operative text.

Santosh Yadav 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. - 4949 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Santosh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harshit Gupta

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Harshit Gupta for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 21.03.2022 being Case Crime No. 147 of 2022 under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Kasganj, Distt. Kasganj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even the petitioner is also minor. 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 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 different cases, relating to offences providing punishment of seven years or less.

¶8

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 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).

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 n.u.

¶12

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.09.16 17:30:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Yadav 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

Azad Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Jitendra Bind Al and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

Smt. Ramanlata and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others