Allowed

K. Ritesh Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2020WP/931/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court disposed of a writ petition challenging the arrest procedure for offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC. The court held that Section 41-A of the CrPC is applicable and directed the Investigating Officer to strictly follow the mandatory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Investigating Officer to strictly follow the procedure under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.

K. Ritesh Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Anticipatory Bail | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.931 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4/defacto complainant has not been issued, however, having regard to the nature of prayer sought, for non-service of the notice is a consequence.

¶5

2. The only grievance of the petitioner/A1 is that while the offences alleged against him under Sections 420, 406, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC are amenable to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer has not followed the Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, there is every likelihood of Investigating Officer, arresting him without following Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

¶6

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition stating that there is no ground for such apprehension.

¶7

4. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner/A1 as per F.I.R are under Sections 420, 406, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, having regard to the nature of offences, the provision under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C is squarely applicable, which is not disputable by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and therefore the Investigating Officer is expected to follow the mandate laid under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C irrespective whether petitioner’s/A1 apprehension is true or not.

¶8

¶9

5. In that view, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in this case to strictly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines rendered by Hon’ble apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar¹ during the course of investigation. In turn, the petitioner/A1 is directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for smooth completion of investigation. Any violation of which, the Investigating Officer is entitled to take further course of action as per law.

¶10

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall

¶11

stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO , J

¶13

20.01.2020 MS

¶14

1 2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC)

¶15

¶16

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.931 OF 2020

¶18

Date.20.01.2020

¶19

K. Ritesh Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ritesh Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kareedula Vijayalakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Muddada Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kunisetti Appa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

t phanidra reddy Vs m satish reddy

Seelapureddy Narasimha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Krishna Vani Complex, Vs the State of Ap