Disposed

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024CRLP/10890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR. Instead of hearing merits, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly comply with arrest mandates under CrPC Section 41 and BNSS Section 35, citing the constitutional necessity of recording arrest reasons.

What did the court decide?

None granted; directions issued to investigating agencies to comply with arrest recording mandates and cessation of petition.

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176554-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10890 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kumar Parikshit

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 04.06.2024 registered as Case Crime No.117 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station-Chola, District-Bulandshahr.

¶8

While entertaining the instant writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court. The Registrar AHCMCC has submitted a report on 22.10.2024 with caption "Mediation Completed. No agreement."

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration.

¶10

However, as all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore, the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 duty-bound to record

¶11

the reasons for arrest in writing. The consequence of noncompliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. On the scope and objective of Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 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).

¶12

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in view of the judgments in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

¶13

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 A. Pandey

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar 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

Kallu @ Mohd Safi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rinki and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Raghuveer Singh vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neha vs State of Up and 3 Others

Harprakash Saxena vs State of Up and 3 Others

Kailash Chandra Sati and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others