Disposed

Abdul Salam v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC15 Apr 2015WPCRL/414/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR under Indian Forest Act. Court disposed petition at admission stage relying on Arnesh Kumar judgment, directing investigation and restraining arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to contact Investigating Officer; Investigating Officer directed to abide by directions before arresting petitioner; Stay application disposed.

Abdul Salam Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Arbitration | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Writ Petition No. 414 of 2015

¶3

Abdul Salam ……. Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand & others ……. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah and Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate Generals for the respondent State.

¶7

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

¶8

The petitioner, by means of present criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR / complaint dated 17.03.2015 lodged against him, registered as Range Case no. 18 / 2014-15 of 2014, under Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, relating to Haridwar Range.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record, as also the grounds taken up in the criminal writ petition.

¶10

The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein it was held :

¶11

¶12

“7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police office before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to present the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

¶13

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

¶14

7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by SubClauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C.”

¶15

Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 22.04.2015, and on such subsequent

¶16

¶17

dates, as may be instructed by him (I.O.) to enable him to complete the investigation in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court before affecting the arrest of the petitioner.

¶19

Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the directions as above.

¶20

Stay application no. 3815 of 2015 also stands disposed of.

¶21

Dt. April 15, 2015.

¶22

Negi

Abdul Salam v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salam v. State Of Uttarakhand and 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

Ram Vriksha Bairagi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Abhinav Shah Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Bhagwan Chandra Bhatt Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Rahul Amin Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vijay Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Faim Vs State Of Uttarakhand