Disposed

Pitla Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jan 2015CRLP/246/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the investigating agency to strictly follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Section 41 Cr.P.C. before taking coercive steps against the sole accused.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the investigating agency to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 41 Cr.P.C. before taking coercive steps against the petitioner.

Pitla Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.246 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is sole-accused, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking release in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.8 of 2015 of Tandur Town Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶5

Though the present application is filed seeking release in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the investigating agency to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and anothe r^[1] .

¶6

In Arnesh Kumar case (1 supra) the Apex Court held as under:

¶7

1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.

¶8

2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41 (1) (b) (ii);

¶9

3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

¶10

4) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

¶11

5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶12

6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

¶13

7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶14

8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate high court.

¶15

The Apex Court also held that “the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases were offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.”

¶16

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and since the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with fine, the investigating agency shall scrupulously follow the conditions stipulated in the judgment of the Apex Court and also Section 41 Cr.P.C., before taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶17

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶18

_________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶19

22.01.2015 Note: Issue cc by tomorrow siva

¶20

[1] 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 457 SC

Pitla Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitla Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

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

Mekala Girish Vs The State of Telangana

Hanumandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Duvadda Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

S. Narsimulu Vs The State of Telangana

Hadi Bin Saleh Vs Atifa Begum

Bellamkonda Kishore Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh